Supreme Court rules today on Chevron’s OMLs 52, 53, 55 asset sale

The supreme Court will today deliver judgment in a suit involving  Brittania-U Nigeria Ltd , oil giant Chevron Nigeria and Seplat Petroleum Development Company, on the disputed sale of three oil blocks – Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) 52, 53 and 55.

This follows the taking of arguments in the appeal brought by Brittania-U against Chevron Nigeria Limited and four others by the Supreme Court sitting in Abuja in November 2015.

The five-man panel of the apex court, led by Justice Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta, had fixed January 29, 2016 for judgment, after listening to the submissions of the learned counsel for all the parties who canvassed their positions vigorously before the court.

Brittania-U Nigeria Limited is challenging the award of Oil Mining Leases (OML) 52, 53 and 55 by Chevron Nigeria Limited to Seplat Petroleum Development Company Limited. Joined as defendants also, are Chevron USA Inc, BNP Parbas Securities Corp, Hermant Petel and Seplat Petroleum Development Company limited. Britannia-U Nigeria Limited had approached the court seeking for a declaration that its final binding offer of $1.015 billion for acquisition of 40 percent participating interest of Chevron Nigeria in oil mining leases 52, 53 and 55 has been accepted by the first defendant. 

The plaintiff stated that the second defendant, (Chevron USA) requested Britannia-U to provide firm Board commitment letter issued by the plaintiff’s bankers for payment of the balance of $765million which was complied with.

Ricky Tarfa, SAN and Abiodun Owoniko, SAN, lawyers representing Brittania-U  at the proceedings, told the court that the pending appeal before it was in respect of the judgment of the Court of Appeal vacating the status quo order.

He also urged the court to grant the motion for mandatory restorative order to revert parties to status quo before the appeal was lodged.  Interim injunction was granted by the Federal High Court on December 13, 2013, halting the assignment of Chevron OML 52, 53 and 55 to any of the unsuccessful companies, including Seplat, in the bid won by Brittania-U in September, 2013.

Tarfa went ahead to inform the court that the appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal, dated June 20, 2014 and the appellant’s brief, dated October 31, 2014 filed the same date.

He further told the court that the appellant filed a reply brief of argument on March 23, 2015 together with an amended brief of argument which was deemed filed on that date, after first respondent amended its brief.

Uche Nwokoedi, the lawyer representing  Chevron and 4th respondent appellants,  on his part, informed the court that his clients have also filed their reply to the brief of argument. He further submitted that he filed a notice of preliminary objection to hearing of the appeal which was filed on same day with the reply to the brief of argument.

A. V. Etuwewe, lawyer representing the third and fifth respondents, told the court that his clients filed their reply brief of argument on March 3, last year, but deemed properly filed on March 23, last year.

Appellant counsel therefore urged the court to grant their relief as captured in paragraph 8.02 in the appellant’s brief and also informed the court that they filed list of additional authorities dated October 22, 2015 which addressed the court on its power to make consequential orders. Damien Dodo SAN, who is the counsel to  Seplat which is  the 1st respondent appellant, told the court that his client’s brief of argument dated March 23, 2015 was filed on March 24, 2015. He urged the court to dismiss the appeal, stating that it’s an interlocutory appeal and the core issue was whether or not the lower court was right to set aside the ex parte order by the trial court that extended the order indefinitely, noting that the substantive matter was still pending. Apparently miffed by their submissions, counsel to Brittania-U, Rickey Tarfa SAN, argued that it was their game plan to forestall the matter so that they can use technicality to knock off the case.

He told the Justices that they failed to realise that in this particular case the 14 days did not apply because the statutes says if you sue foreigners outside jurisdiction, they must be given 30days before they can be compelled to appear before the court.

He said: “When the case resumed at the trial court, after grant of ex-parte injunction the respondents brought an objection that the court has no jurisdiction. So we argued that in view of the objection that the court has no jurisdiction, what is the position as at then because the res must be preserved while issue of jurisdiction is yet to be determined.

“This was the reason the court made preservative order over the res while fixing the preliminary objection for hearing on the first opportunity. He urged the court not to allow them take undue advantage of the delay they’ve caused.”