A Federal High Court in Lagos has extended the restraining order previously granted against the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) and the receiver appointed over Universal Insurance Plc, pending the hearing of the company’s suit challenging the revocation of its operating licence.
The development was disclosed in a corporate filing submitted to the Nigerian Exchange (NGX) on September 4, 2026, and signed by the company’s secretary, Chinedu Onyilimba.
Universal Insurance instituted legal proceedings against NAICOM following the cancellation of its operating licence and the appointment of a receiver.
According to the company, the matter came up for hearing on September 3, 2026, but proceedings could not continue after the respondents filed their court processes late.
The court subsequently adjourned the case to September 16, 2026, for the hearing of the substantive suit.
Despite the adjournment, Universal Insurance said the court extended the restraining order earlier granted against NAICOM and the appointed receiver, pending the determination of the case.
Universal Insurance also assured shareholders, policyholders and the investing public that it would continue to pursue all available legal and regulatory avenues to protect their interests.
The insurer was among the companies that failed to meet NAICOM’s July 31, 2026 deadline for compliance with the insurance industry’s revised minimum capital requirements.
Under the appointment, the receiver is responsible for taking possession of the insurer’s assets, reconciling liabilities, facilitating settlements where necessary, and providing periodic reports to NAICOM on the receivership process.
Following the regulator’s action, Universal Insurance approached the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, seeking leave to challenge what it described as the “purported cancellation” of its operating licence and the appointment of a Receiver/Manager.
The court had earlier granted the company permission to commence proceedings and directed the respondents to show cause why an interim order restraining further action on the licence revocation and receivership should not be granted.
The court also instructed all parties to refrain from taking actions that could prejudice the proceedings pending the determination of the application.
