The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday ordered Heineken Lokpobiri, Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), and others to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of a case involving four oil fields.
Justice Emeka Nwite gave the order after Ambrose Unaeze, who appeared for the plaintiffs, Hi-Rev Oil Ltd and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Ltd, moved the application to the effect.
|
|
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2678/2025, are the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC).
Justice Nwite had, on 22 December 2025, ordered the minister, the AGF and NUPRC to show cause why the reliefs of the plaintiffs in their motion ex parte should not be granted.
|
|
|---|
The judge made the order after Mr Unaeze moved the motion dated and filed on 11 December.
The oil and gas companies had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants, or whoever is acting on their behalf, from selling, assigning, or allocating the Yorla South (Petroleum Prospecting Licence (PPL) 2A32 – OML 11) located in Rivers State.
The order is to also restrain the defendants from allocating Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 – OML 25) located in Bayelsa State; Diebu Creek East (OML 32) also situated in Bayelsa and Idiok (PPL 2A41 – OML 67) located in Akwa Ibom State, “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for Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, previously allocated to the plaintiff but was later withdrawn by the defendants, pending the hearing of the interlocutory application in this suit.”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were previously allocated the Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, but were “unreasonably” withdrawn by the federal government.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 and adopted, and it became a consent judgement.
Mr Unaeze stated that the firms had taken substantial steps and offered consideration in respect of the grant of the licence to operate OPL and the licence to establish a petroleum refinery.
He argued that the defendants are threatening the companies’ legal right, 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 a round bid, hence, the need for the interim order.
The judge did not grant the order. He, however, ordered the defendants to appear on 5 January (today).
What transpired in court
When the matter was called on Monday, Mr Unaeze informed the court that an order was made for the defendants to show cause why their relief should not be granted.
The lawyer stated that the 1st and 3rd defendants (the minister and NUPRC) had just served him with their memorandum of conditional appearance, counter affidavit, and preliminary objection in court, and that he would need time to respond.
Mr Unaeze, however, applied that the defendants, who were duly represented in court by their lawyers, should give an undertaking not to take any action that might affect the subject matter, pending the hearing and determination of the case.
“This is because of the nature of the case and the risk the res (subject matter) may face before the next adjourned date,” he said.
Speaking, Oyinlade Koleoso, who appeared for the 2nd defendant (AGF), said they had filed a counter-affidavit and a preliminary objection, although they had yet to serve the same.
When the judge asked him if he had filed an affidavit to show cause, Mr Koleose said he believed that the processes he had filed would take care of that.
READ ALSO: I will make sure APC wins Abia in 2027– Orji Kalu
The lawyer told the court that, based on Mr Unaeze’s application, their submission was that the AGF was not in a position to allocate oil blocks.
The 3rd defendant (NUPRC)’s lawyer, J. A. Olugbade, disagreed with Mr Unaeze’s application.
He stated that he opposed the plaintiff’s lawyer’s prayer, as he had already filed a counter-affidavit and a preliminary objection.
B. J. Tabaya, counsel for the 1st defendant (minister), said he did not have the instruction of his client to make such an undertaking as sought by Mr Unaeze.
“But when a case is in court, what are you supposed to do?” the judge asked Mr Tabaya.
“Party will maintain status quo,” the lawyer responded.
“So go and tell your client that as far as this matter is before the court, parties should maintain the status quo,” the judge said.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Nwite, who granted Mr Unaeze’s application, ordered the parties to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the matter.
The judge then adjourned the matter until 26 January for hearing.
