The Federal High Court in Abuja has refused to grant an application seeking to stop Mr Heineken Lokpobiri, Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), and others from allocating some oil fields.
Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on an ex-parte motion filed by Hi-Rev Oil Limited and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Ltd but moved by their lawyer, Ambrose Unaeze, rather ordered that the respondents be put on notice.
“The respondents are hereby ordered by this honourable court to show cause why the application should not be granted,” Justice Nwite ruled.
Justice Nwite, a vacation judge, adjourned the matter until Jan. 5 for the respondents to show cause.
Freedomonline reports that the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the ex-parte motion, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2678/2025, are the Attorney-General of Federation (AGF) and Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC).
The motion, dated and filed on Dec. 11 by a team of lawyers led by Unaeze, sought a relief.
The oil and gas companies are seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants or whomsoever is acting on their behest from selling, assigning or allocating the Yorla South (Petroleum Prospecting Licence (PPL) 2A32 – OML 11) located in Rivers.
The order is to also 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, “same being direct replacements for Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, previously allocated to the plaintiff but was later withdrawn by the defendants, pending the hearing of the interlocutory application in this suit.”
Giving four grounds why their application should be granted, the lawyer said the companies were previously allocated the Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, but were unreasonably withdrawn by the Federal Government.
He said parties had a settlement agreement for the replacement of the Utapate Oil Field, which was accepted or adopted and it became consent judgement.
Unaeze stated that the firms had taken substantial steps and offered consideration in respect of the grant of the licence to operate OPL and licence to establish a petroleum refinery.
He argued that the companies’ legal right is being threatened by the defendants, pursuant to the threat to sell or allocate the oil fields at Yorla South, Akiapiri, Diebu Creek East, and Idiok to third parties via the defendants’ offer to the public for round bid, hence, the need for the interim order.
In the affidavit in support of the motion, the companies’ Director, Chief Felix Ezeamama, averred that in 2007, the firms won the bid for OPL 2002, but the exercise was suspended following a lawsuit filed by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC), the former operator of OML 13 as at then.
“However, the plaintiffs subsequently filed an action against the defendants over lack of access to the oil field in Suit No. FHC/CS/1077/2007, which led to an out of court settlement in 2015 between the plaintiffs and the defendants,” he said.
Ezeamama said this led to the adoption of the terms of settlement as a consent judgment.
According to him, the settlement agreement confirmed and declared the plaintiffs as the rightful winner of OPL 2002 and provided for the issuance of a 50,000 BPD modular refinery license at Iko Community, Eastern Obolo L.G.A., Akwa Ibom State.
“And following this act, the DPR (now NUPRC) issued the plaintiffs with both the award letter (Offer of Oil Prospecting License – OPL 2002) and License to establish Petroleum Refinery, and based on that act of the defendants, the plaintiffs made part payment of the signature bonus while liaising with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) on exchange rate arrangements for the balance.
He said consequent upon the said award/offer of Oil Prospecting License — OPL 2002 and license to establish petroleum refinery by the defendants, the plaintiffs submitted a detailed engineering design as per statutory compliance for the construction of 50,000 BPSD Refinery at Iko Community, Eastern Obolo L.G.A of Akwa Ibom.
He said the defendants, in their wisdom after series of review, approved the detailed engineering design and construction as submitted and further advised the plaintiffs to proceed to the next phase of the project.
“That a subsequent high-level stakeholders meeting chaired by the then AGF, on-behalf of the defendants, wherein he proposed a settlement offering the plaintiffs either two oil fields from OPL 2002.
“This, is a with a complete data for each of the fields, or three (3) other marginal fields of its choice with complete data for the fields elsewhere from the Government Basket, under sole risk terms with a nominal signature bonus.”
Ezeamama said owing to the facts as stated above, the plaintiffs selected the Obuzo, Uzoaku, and Ofemini Oil Fields, which were approved for implementation by the defendants.
“However, the fields were later included in a marginal field bid round and sold to other operators, leaving none available as alternatives for the plaintiffs,” he said.
According to him, the matter remained unresolved for years, and each time the plaintiffs approached the defendants for the replacement of their oil fields, the defendants would always make promises and undertakings to the plaintiffs that they will provide them with other viable oil fields of equivalent value to the earlier ones as granted to them which were unjustifiably withdrawn.
The director averred that they are entitled to the allocation of the said Yorla South – PPL 2A32 – OML 11; Akiapiri: PPL 2A48-OML 25; Diebu Creek East – OML 32 and Idiok: PPL 2A41-OML 67 and grant of license of same as alternative to the earlier oil fields which were unreasonably withdrawn by the defendants.
He said this was so because they had fulfilled the conditions for the grant and also particularly in-line with the consent judgement of the court.
Ezeamama said irreparable loss would have been visited on the plaintiffs and a state of hopelessness would be foisted on the court, if the application was not granted and the defendants go ahead to deal adversely with the plaintiffs’ interest on the selected oil fields.
“That the plaintiffs have suffered grave financial loss and emotional torture in the hands of the defendants, who have continued to dribble the plaintiffs at will” he alleged.
