A Federal High Court, Bayelsa State has set aside 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 Isa Dashen in his judgment delivered in suit number FHC/YNG/CS/157/2024 filed by a private limited liability company, 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 Limited.

The plaintiff had in its originating summons, filed by its counsel, G.E Ikpuri, prayed the court to determine “whether having regard to the 1st defendant’s letter with Reference No: NUPRC/LD/2531/2023/28 dated May 17, 2023, expressly demanding the plaintiff to make payments for the assignment of 45 per cent participation interest in the 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 the 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 1999 Constitution (as altered).”

The plaintiff also wants the court to say whether the text of the 1st defendant’s letter communicating ministerial approval for its application for the sale of its 45 per cent participating interest in the field (PPL-213) to the 2nd defendant, on the conditions that the plaintiff makes the stipulated payment 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, the defendants challenged the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit, contending that the procedures for filing an action of such nature were not followed.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff having failed to commence the action by the proper procedure, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit as presently constituted and ought to be struck out.

Resolving the issues, Justice Dashen held that the 1st defendant’s contentions that the suit ought to have been commenced by way of judicial review was grossly misconceived and therefore discountenanced it.

“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.

“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,” the court held.

On the substantive suit, the court held that it was indisputable that the 1st defendant’s unilateral assignment of 45 per cent of the plaintiff’s interest in the field (PPL 213) to the 2nd defendant 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 fair hearing is not accorded to the affected party, such action, decision among or step is liable to 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 the 100 per cent ownership interest of Kalm Marine and Petroleum Services over PPL 213.