Justice Isa Dashen of the Federal High Court has nullified the 45 per cent Participating Interest in Ogbanabou Field (PPL-213) awarded by the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) to Petrodos Atlantic Energy Limited.
Justice Danshen declared the letter with Reference No: NUPRC/LD/2531/2024/ 47 dated April 4, 2024, invalid, null and void while delivering judgment in suit number FHC/YNG/CS/157/2024 filed by a private limited liability company, Kalm Marine & Petroleum Services.
In the judgment, the judge held that the letter was issued in a manner inconsistent with the plaintiff’s right to a fair hearing and right to own property as stipulated in Sections 36(2) and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.
The Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) and Petrodos Atlantic Energy Limited are the defendants in the suit.
The plaintiff, represented by its lawyer George Ikpuri, urged the court to determine whether the NUPRC’s demand for payment regarding the 45% Participating Interest assignment to Petrodos, without inviting the plaintiff to be heard, breached their rights.
The plaintiff also asked the court to decide “Whether having regard to the text of the 1st defendant’s letter with Reference No: NURPC/LD/ 2531/28 dated 17 May 2023, communicating Ministerial approval for the Plaintiff’s application for the sale of its 45% Participating Interest in Field (PPL-213) to the 2nd defendant, on the conditions that the Plaintiff makes the stipulated payment forty-five (45) days” of the plaintiff’s receipt of the letter; and failure to make the required payment within the stipulated time will “amount to not receiving ministerial consent for the assignment.”
However, in their counter affidavit, the defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit, arguing that the procedures for instituting action of this nature were not followed.
They submitted that the plaintiff should have commenced the action by the proper procedure, so the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as presently constituted and ought to strike it out.
In his judgment, Justice Dashen held that the first defendant’s (NUPRC) contentions that the suit ought to have been commenced through judicial review were grossly misconceived and, therefore, discountenanced.
The court held, “Having carefully reviewed the processes filed and written and oral submissions of counsel on this Notice of Preliminary Objection of the 2nd defendant/Objector, I am in complete agreement with the learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent that this suit is properly commenced.
“I disagree with the contention of the senior counsel that this suit was not commenced by proper procedure, which ought to be by application for judicial review, in particular by way of writ of mandamus.
“I therefore hold that none of the questions for determination and reliefs sought in the suit is seeking for an injunction restraining the 1st: defendant or any other public body or person from acting in any office of which he is not entitled to act to bring this suit under the ambit of Order 34 Rule 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule 2019 which is inapplicable to the instant suit.
“Accordingly, I also hold that by the statutory provisions and documents submitted for construction on the face of the Originating Summons, the questions for determination and the reliefs sought on the face of the Originating Summons and the provisions of Order 3 Rules 6 and 7 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule 2019, the commencement of the instant suit by way of the Originating Summons is the correct, proper and appropriate mode of commencing this suit which therefore properly commenced.”
On the substantive suit, the court held that it was indisputable that the first defendant’s unilateral assignment of 45% of the Plaintiff’s interest in Field (PPL 213) to the 2nd defendant without hearing the plaintiff should be set aside by the court.
Justice Dashen held, “There must be compliance with the doctrine of fair hearing. If a fair hearing is not accorded to the affected party, such action, decision, or step must be set aside.
“It is indisputable that this court should set aside the 1st defendant’s unilateral assignment of 45% of the Plaintiff’s interest in Field (PPL 213) to the 2nd defendant without hearing the Plaintiff. There must be compliance with the doctrine of fairness. Hearing. If fair hearing is not accorded to the affected party, such action or step must be set aside.”
Consequently, the court directed the NUPRC to rectify its Register of Ownership of Participating Interests in PPL-213 (or such register where Petroleum prospecting licenses are kept) to reflect Kalm Marine and Petroleum Services’ 100% ownership interest in PPL 213.
The court held, “In the light of the preceding, I have that the sole issue should be and is at this moment resolved in favour of the plaintiff and against the 1st and 2nd defendants.
“Reliefs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are now granted. I make no order as to cost,” the judge held.
We’ve got the edge. Get real-time reports, breaking scoops, and exclusive angles delivered straight to your phone. Don’t settle for stale news. Join LEADERSHIP NEWS on WhatsApp for 24/7 updates →
Join Our WhatsApp Channel
