A&B Energy’s Hijacked Assets: How a South Sudanese Investor’s Fuel Station Was Taken from the Inside by Foreign Businessmen

Kenyan-Somali businessmen influence and political shielding have derailed a court order to freeze A&B Energy Company now renamed TIC SOM, exposing a high-stakes corporate fight over seized fuel asset.

A high-stakes commercial dispute over the ownership and operation of fuel-station assets linked to A&B Energy Limited and TIC SOM General Trading has reached the courts, with competing claims over company ownership, corporate assets and the enforcement of judicial orders.

Armed with court orders, registry certificates, and appellate rulings, South Sudanese shareholder John Lual Bang is seeking to protect what he says is his 50 percent interest in A&B Energy and to recover assets he alleges were transferred or diverted without his consent.

Court records presented in the proceedings include company registry documents, court orders and appellate decisions concerning the disputed business and the operations of TIC SOM General Trading.

Origin of the dispute

The dispute dates back to 2018, when A&B Energy Limited was incorporated in South Sudan as a commercial joint venture.

According to company registry documents cited in the proceedings, John Lual Bang held a 50 percent shareholding, alongside four foreign business partners — Abdirizak Ali, Liban Ali, Gafow Mohamed and Abdalla Osman.

The dispute intensified around 2022 following developments concerning the commercial lease for the fuel station.

Court pleadings indicate that the parties disagree over the subsequent establishment and operation of TIC SOM General Trading.

Bang alleges that the company was established and subsequently used to conduct operations previously associated with A&B Energy, and that corporate assets and cash flows were transferred without his authorization.

The respondents have disputed these claims.

Dispute over the fuel-station operations

Bang’s case is that the disputed business and assets remained connected to A&B Energy and that the subsequent operations of TIC SOM excluded him from his claimed interest in the business.

The respondents, however, argued in court that Bang’s shareholding was in A&B Energy and not in TIC SOM General Trading.

They also argued that the fuel-station operations were affected by the expiry or non-renewal of the relevant land lease.

The competing claims remain part of the ongoing litigation.

Court orders and enforcement

The dispute later resulted in a series of court proceedings concerning precautionary measures and the operation of TIC SOM General Trading.

In Case No. 596/2022 before the Kator Court in Juba, the matter proceeded to the Court of Appeal following an interlocutory ruling by the lower court.

According to the appellate decision cited in the proceedings, the Court of Appeal set aside the lower court’s disputed order and granted the petitioner’s appeal.

The appellate court subsequently issued an interlocutory injunction concerning the operations of TIC SOM General Trading pending determination of the substantive dispute.

An earlier order dated October 7, 2022, attributed to Judge Thomas Deng Jago, had also directed the court’s enforcement officer to take steps concerning the premises and the operations.

The parties continue to disagree over the implementation and effect of these orders.

Competing claims over corporate assets

During the proceedings, Bang’s lawyers argued that TIC SOM had been established using resources or assets belonging to A&B Energy and that the disputed fuel station was subsequently operated under a different corporate structure.

The petitioner also raised concerns about the use of different corporate names in connection with the disputed business.

The respondents rejected the petitioner’s position and argued that the evidence did not establish the basis for the precautionary injunction sought by Bang.

They maintained that Bang had failed to establish the necessary evidentiary basis for the relief he was seeking.

The court ultimately granted the interlocutory relief sought by the petitioner.

Arrest warrant claims

A primary source provided verified testimony detailing attempts by influential figures to derail the proceedings, alongside military-linked safety threats formally reported to SSPDF Headquarters. Following these reports, a military arrest warrant was issued for Daniel Thel Anei over allegations related to the threats.

Enforcement remains contested

The enforcement of the court orders has also become a point of dispute.

Documents and accounts presented in the proceedings indicate difficulties encountered during attempts to implement the orders.

The parties disagree over the reasons for those difficulties and responsibility for any failure to comply.

Claims of political interference, obstruction or improper protection should therefore be understood as allegations unless and until supported by independent evidence or established by a competent court.

Right of reply

Eye Radio sought responses from the respondents regarding the allegations raised in the dispute.

At the time of publication, formal responses from the respondents had not been obtained.

Attempts were made to contact co-respondent Liban Ali, but calls were unanswered.

The respondents are entitled to respond to the allegations, and Eye Radio remains available to publish relevant responses or clarifications.

The case continues

The dispute remains before the courts and raises broader questions concerning corporate governance, shareholder rights, commercial disputes and the enforcement of judicial orders in South Sudan.

The final determination of the parties’ respective rights, ownership claims and any alleged wrongdoing remains a matter for the competent court.