Court Restrains PENGASSAN From Disrupting Spie Services’ Offshore Oil Platform Operations

Justice Nelson Ogbuanya of the Owerri Division made the order on March 25, 2025, while ruling on a Motion on Notice by Spie Services.

The claimant/applicant sought “An order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the defendant/respondent either by itself or by its members, affiliates, agents, privies, associates, servants and or any person howsoever acting for or on behalf of the defendant from proceeding or embarking on any industrial action or other acts of interfering, disturbing, disrupting, stopping and or shutting down the claimant’s daily operations and maintenance of the said AKPO FPSO oil and gas industry installation pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.”

Spie Services sued the defendant over its threat to shut down its operation and maintenance of the AKPO FPSO facility.

PENGASSAN, in a February 16 letter, issued a 72-hour strike ultimatum to the company, threatening to shut down its operations for its alleged failure to allow workers in the facility to be unionised.

Justice Ogbuanya held: “From the record, I find that the claimant has demonstrated that its legal right in the subsisting contract and business operation at the AKPO FSPO facility is under threat by the defendant’s continued threat of industrial action and actual blockade of access to the facility.

“This overt threat and apprehension by the claimant/applicant has been heightened in the face of ‘Exhibit A and B’, confirming the official directive of the defendant union and follow-up action, which if not restrained, would overreach the contractual rights of the claimant/applicant in the said AKPO FSPO facility, while parties are still litigating their dispute in court.

“I find also, that the line of opposition by the defendant/respondent borders on the issue as to whether the defendant union has the right to unionise the workers operating in the facility under the purview of the defendant union, which also forms the fulcrum of the substantive dispute between the parties herein.

“I cannot at this interlocutory stage take any step to preempt such an issue in dispute, as the interlocutory stage is not an arena to pry into the substantive dispute of the parties. I so hold.

Being aware and so guided by the extant adjudicatory principle in that regard, I have considered this application solely on the basis of the lone issue as to – Whether the claimant/applicant has made out a good case to be granted an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant as prayed?

“While going through the claimant/applicant’s averments and exhibits juxtaposing with the learned counsel’s submissions on elements of the principles guiding the granting of the interlocutory injunction, I noted that the learned counsel for the claimant/applicant had also smartly kept his submissions within the circumference of an interlocutory application under consideration at this interlocutory stage.

“In Adeleke v. Lawal (supra) @ P.31 paras. D-E, the Supreme Court held that ‘The purpose of an application for interlocutory injunction is to keep the parties in an action in status quo, in which they were before the judgment or act complained of’.

“The apex Court @P. 30, paras. G-H, explained the object and rationale for granting an interlocutory injunction, thus: ‘An interlocutory injunction otherwise called preliminary or temporary injunction is issued before or during trial to prevent an irreparable injury from occurring before the court has a chance to decide the case. This type of injunction will be issued only after the defendant is confirmed to have had notice and an opportunity to be heard’.

“On the whole, in line with the jurisdictional mandate of this court, as set out in S.254C(1)(C) of the extant Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, on matters ‘relating to or connected with the grant of any order restraining any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock-out or any industrial action, or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance of a strike, lock-out, or any industrial action and matters connected therewith or related thereto’, I am satisfied that the claimant/applicant has made out a good case deserving judicial intervention and protection by way of order of interlocutory injunction.

“In the circumstance, the application succeeds and the reliefs are granted as prayed.

“Accordingly, an order of interlocutory injunction is hereby granted restraining the defendant/respondent either by itself or by its members, affiliates, agents, privies, associates, servants and or any person howsoever acting for or on behalf of the defendant from proceeding or embarking on any industrial action or other acts of interfering, disturbing, disrupting, stopping and or shutting down the claimant’s daily operations and maintenance of the said AKPO FPSO oil and gas industry installation pending the hearing and determination of the substantive suit. I so hold and order.

“Ruling is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost.”