Executive Summary
- CE Energy DMCC (CEE) sold gasoil and jet fuel to Ultimate OIL & GAS DMCC (UOG), chaired by Mr. Bashar, between 2022-2023.
- UOG accrued significant unpaid debts; a January 2024 payment agreement included UOG’s irrevocable admissions of liability totaling AED ~120 million.
- CEE claims under the personal guarantee by Mr. Bashar and for unpaid cargo prices under spot contracts.
- The court applied the "realistic prospect" test for summary judgment, concluding Mr. Bashar and UOG have no realistic defense.
- Key rulings: UOG’s liability admissions bind Mr. Bashar; CEE entitled to claim price despite retaining title; other defenses lack merit.
Sanctions Highlights
- Sanctions implications arise due to BIS regulations potentially affecting transactions involving Nigerian entities and offshore trading arms.
- UOG’s offshore status and complex payment defaults may trigger scrutiny under export control and financial sanctions regimes.
- The guarantee and payment agreement admissions could expose Mr. Bashar personally to sanctions enforcement risks.
- No direct sanctions breach found in the judgment, but ongoing debt enforcement may intersect with sanctions compliance.
Emerging Risks
- Enforcement of guarantees and debt recovery in cross-border energy trades involving Nigerian-linked entities remains legally and operationally complex.
- Arbitration and litigation delays increase exposure to asset freezes or sanctions designations.
- Payment defaults amid geopolitical tensions between China (energy supply interests) and UK (jurisdiction) may complicate enforcement.
- Risk of capricious payment allocations and demurrage disputes could invite further litigation or regulatory scrutiny.
Geopolitical Impact
- The case highlights UK courts’ role in adjudicating disputes involving Nigerian energy firms with offshore arms, reflecting UK’s strategic legal influence.
- China’s growing energy footprint in Africa contrasts with UK’s legal and financial oversight, underscoring competing geopolitical interests.
- UK’s enforcement of commercial guarantees may deter illicit financial flows linked to sanctioned or high-risk jurisdictions.
- The dispute illustrates challenges in balancing commercial arbitration preferences (Dubai to LCIA) amid shifting geopolitical alliances.
Economic Intelligence
- The outstanding debt of nearly AED 120 million (~USD 32.6 million) underscores liquidity pressures in Nigerian energy trading sectors.
- Retention of title clauses protect suppliers but complicate payment and delivery logistics offshore.
- Late payments and demurrage claims indicate operational inefficiencies and financial stress in regional fuel supply chains.
- The case signals caution for energy firms extending credit to Nigerian offshore trading arms amid volatile payment behaviors.
Strategic Recommendations
- Monitor sanctions lists and BIS regulations for updates affecting Nigerian energy trading entities and their guarantors.
- Advise clients to secure irrevocable liability admissions and personal guarantees in cross-border energy contracts.
- Prioritize arbitration clauses favoring jurisdictions with robust enforcement mechanisms (e.g., LCIA over Dubai).
- Conduct enhanced due diligence on offshore trading arms and their ownership to mitigate enforcement and sanctions risks.
- Prepare for potential asset tracing and enforcement actions in multiple jurisdictions given complex corporate structures.
---
**Source Notes:**
Sanctions Intelligence Digest | [https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/297.html](https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/297.html)