Court Nullifies NUPRC’s Assignment Of 45% Stake In Ogbanabou Field To Petrodos

The court, in a judgment delivered in a suit numbered FHC/YNG/CS/157/2024 by Kalm Marine & Petroleum Services, declared the letter with Reference No: NUPRC/LD/2531/2024/ 47 dated April 4, 2024, invalid, null and void.

The court 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 provided for in Sections 36(2) and 44 of the 1999 Constitution (as altered).

The defendants in the suit are NUPRC and Petrodos Atlantic Energy.

Justice Dashen held: “There must be compliance with the doctrine of fair hearing.

“If fair hearing is not accorded to the affected party, such action, decision or step is liable to be set aside.”

The plaintiff, through its lawyer, G.E Ikpuri, prayed the court to determine: “Whether having regard to the first defendant’s letter with Reference No: NUPRC/LD/2531/2023/28 dated 17th May, 2023, expressly demanding the plaintiff to make payments for the assignment of 45 per cent Participation Interest in Field (PPL-213) to the 2nd defendant, the failure of the 1st defendant to invite and hear from the plaintiff (who is to make the payment) before collecting money and unilaterally assigning 45 per cent of the plaintiff’s participation Interest in Field (PPL-213) to the 2nd defendant, is not in breach of the plaintiff’s fair hearing and right to property as enshrined in Sections 36(2) and 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“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 per cent 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.”

The defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction, contending that the procedures for instituting action of this nature were not followed.

Justice Dashen held that NUPRC’s contention that the suit ought to have been commenced by way of judicial review was grossly misconceived and therefore discountenanced.

The court held: “Having carefully reviewed the processes filed and also the written and oral submissions of counsel on this Notice of Preliminary Objection of the 2nd defendant/objector, I am therefore in full agreement with the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent that this suit is properly commenced.

“I do not agree 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.”

On the substantive suit, the court held that it was indisputable that NUPRC’s unilateral assignment of 45 per cent of the plaintiff’s interest in PPL 213 to Petrodos without hearing the plaintiff ought to 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 is liable to be set aside.

“It is indisputable that the first defendant’s unilateral assignment of 45 per cent of the plaintiff’s interest in Field (PPL 213) to the second defendant without hearing the plaintiff ought to be set aside by this court.

“There must be compliance with the doctrine of fair hearing. If fair hearing is not accorded to the affected party, such action, or step is liable to be set aside.”

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 the 100 per cent ownership interest of Kalm Marine and Petroleum Services over PPL 213.

The court added: “In the light of the foregoing, I hold that the sole issue should be and is hereby resolved in favour of the plaintiff and against the first and second defendants.

“Reliefs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all hereby granted. I make no order as to cost.”