The Federal High Court in Abuja has refused to grant an application seeking to stop 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, instead 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.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the ex parte motion, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2678/2025, are the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC).
The motion, dated and filed on Dec. 11 by a team of lawyers led by Unaeze, sought reliefs.
The oil and gas companies are seeking an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants, or whosoever 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 also to restrain the defendants from allocating Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 – OML 25) located in Bayelsa State; Diebu Creek East (OML 32), also located in Bayelsa State; and Idiok (PPL 2A41 – OML 67) located in Akwa Ibom State, “the same being direct replacements for Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, previously allocated to the plaintiff but later withdrawn by the defendants, pending the hearing of the interlocutory application in this suit.”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were previously allocated the Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, but these were unreasonably withdrawn by the Federal Government.
He said the parties had a settlement agreement for the replacement of the Utapate Oil Field, which was accepted and adopted, becoming a consent judgment.
Unaeze stated that the firms had taken substantial steps and offered consideration in respect of the grant of the licence to operate the OPL and a licence to establish a petroleum refinery.
He argued that the companies’ legal rights are 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 a bid round, 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 at the time.
Ezeamama said this led to the adoption of the terms of settlement as a consent judgment.
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 winners of OPL 2002 and provided for the issuance of a 50,000 BPD modular refinery licence at Iko Community, Eastern Obolo LGA, Akwa Ibom State.
“And following this act, the DPR (now NUPRC) issued the plaintiffs with both the award letter (Offer of Oil Prospecting Licence – OPL 2002) and a licence to establish a 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 Licence – OPL 2002 and licence to establish a petroleum refinery by the defendants, the plaintiffs submitted a detailed engineering design, as per statutory compliance, for the construction of a 50,000 BPSD refinery at Iko Community, Eastern Obolo LGA, Akwa Ibom State.
“He said the defendants, after a series of reviews, 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, proposed a settlement offering the plaintiffs either two oil fields from OPL 2002 with complete data for each of the fields, or three other marginal fields of their choice with complete data elsewhere from the government basket under sole risk terms with a nominal signature bonus.”