The disputed oil fields spread across Bayelsa, Rivers and Akwa Ibom States.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday dismissed a suit filed by Hi-Rev Oil Limited and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Limited challenging the proposed allocation of four oil fields.
They asked the court for an order restraining the defendants from selling, assigning or allocating the Yorla South field – Petroleum Prospecting Licence 2A32 under Oil Mining Lease 11; Akiapiri oil filed (PPL 2A48 – OML 25) located in Bayelsa Statr; Diebu Creek East (OML 32), also located in Bayelsa; and Idiok (PPL 2A41 – OML 67) located in Akwa Ibom.
Judge Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on preliminary objections by the defendants, held that the suit was “incompetent.”
The judge said the plaintiffs failed to serve a valid pre-action notice on the relevant government institutions in line with Section 308 of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021. He said this failure deprived the court of jurisdiction.
He explained that a valid pre-action notice must set out the complaint, the intention to sue within a specified time, and the reliefs being sought.
The judge held that the letter relied on by the plaintiffs did not meet the statutory requirement.
He added that jurisdiction is fundamental and any proceedings conducted without it amount to a nullity.
The judge also agreed with the petroleum minister that the plaintiffs failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
He said the objections raised serious issues that went to the competence of the suit.
“The objection of the 1st defendant succeeds. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and the suit is dismissed. I so hold,” the judge ruled.
The suit was filed on 11 December last year.
On 22 December, the judge ordered the Minister, the AGF and the NUPRC to show cause why the reliefs sought in the plaintiffs’ ex-parte motion should not be granted.
The order was also to restrain the defendants from allocating Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 – OML 25) located in Bayelsa; Diebu Creek East (OML 32), also located in Bayelsa; and Idiok (PPL 2A41 – OML 67) located in Akwa Ibom.
The assets were described as direct replacements for the Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, previously allocated to the plaintiffs but later withdrawn by the defendants. The order subsists pending the hearing of the interlocutory application.
The defendants, including Lokpobiri, the AGF and the NUPRC, would later file preliminary objections, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the matter.
On 5 January this year, while arguing the preliminary objection, Michael Numa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), who appeared for Mr Lokpobiri, submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction as there was no specific allocation of oil fields to the plaintiffs.
Mr Numa said the plaintiffs only relied on an alleged promise by the federal government to provide additional oil fields beyond those allocated in 2002. He argued that allocation is done through a formal bidding process.
He further said the Federal Government has statutory powers to allocate oil fields and that a promise alone does not create an enforceable right.
“Therefore, there is no reasonable cause of action in this case. And the court cannot create a legal right for the claimants because the process of allocation is always founded on statutory provisions meant to be protected by the court, not for the court to create one,” Mr Numa said.
He added that the court cannot act on promises where no specific asset exists to ground the relief sought, particularly as one of the fields had already been assigned to another party.
The lawyer also argued that the plaintiffs failed to serve his client with a pre-action notice in line with Section 308 of the PIA, 2021.
Similarly, the AGF’s lawyer, Oyinlola Koleosho, in his preliminary objection, asked the court to dismiss the suit, describing it as speculative.
He said the plaintiffs lacked locus standi over the four oil fields since no agreement existed.
The NUPRC, represented by O.M. Atoyeji, also filed a preliminary objection and urged the court to strike out the suit.
Mr Atoyeji argued that the alleged promises did not confer any legal right on the plaintiffs.
He further said the action was filed outside the statutory time limit prescribed by the Public Officers Protection Act and the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021.
Responding to their arguments, lawyer to the plaintiffs, Ambrose Unaeze, said the plaintiffs were entitled to protection of the court.
He said the defendants risked allocating the oil fields to third parties without judicial intervention.
He added that the parties had held several meetings with the defendants and paid substantial amounts as promotion fees.
He also said the plaintiffs had been granted refineries and licences, but the government later claimed they had no rights.
“We are not saying your lordship should interpret the judgment or enforce the consent judgment they referred to; we are talking about the responsibility placed on them by that judgment,” he said.
Mr Unaeze urged the court to dismiss the objections.
The judge, however, ruled in favour of the defendants on Monday, bringing the case to an end.
