TRACKNEWS ONLINE | INVESTIGATIVE DESK
The Cross River State Government was named as a defendant in a United States federal court lawsuit over the 2014 concession agreement for the Obudu hospital project, but the case was dismissed in April 2024 without a trial on the alleged contractual breaches.
Court records from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, examined by NaijaonpointOnline, show that the case, filed by Oranefo Okolo as assignee of St. Luke’s Hospital Consortium, remained before the court for nearly five years without the state government entering an appearance or filing a response.
The lawsuit, docketed as Case No. 19 Civ. 5329, was dismissed on April 12, 2024, after the court concluded that the state government was protected by sovereign immunity and that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
The dismissal, however, did not determine whether the Cross River State Government breached the concession agreement or resolve the underlying dispute over the hospital project.
The case raises questions about the handling of an international legal dispute involving a state government, a hospital concession agreement and repeated attempts by the claimant to obtain a default judgment.
THE 2014 OBUdu HOSPITAL CONCESSION AGREEMENT
The dispute originated from a concession agreement executed in 2014 between St. Luke’s Hospital Consortium and the Cross River State Government.
Under the agreement, St. Luke’s was expected to finance, renovate, manage and operate a hospital in Cross River State as part of the Obudu hospital project.
The claimant, Oranefo Okolo, subsequently sued as the assignee of the consortium, alleging that the agreement had been breached.
His initial claims included breach of contract and quantum meruit, a legal principle that can allow recovery for the reasonable value of services or benefits provided where the circumstances justify payment.
On April 17, 2021, Okolo filed an amended complaint adding allegations of tortious interference with a prospective advantage and unlawful expropriation of property.
These were allegations advanced by the claimant and were not findings established by the court.
The agreement was executed in 2014, during the administration of former Governor Liyel Imoke. The litigation subsequently extended through the administration of former Governor Ben Ayade and into the first year of Governor Bassey Otu.
FIRST LAWSUIT DISMISSED OVER SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
The 2019 case was not Okolo’s first attempt to pursue the dispute in the United States.
In 2018, he filed an earlier lawsuit against the Cross River State Government in the same court, under Case No. 18-cv-9479, based on the same concession agreement.
Judge Cathy Seibel denied his applications for default judgment and dismissed the case without prejudice on May 31, 2019.
According to the court’s decision, Okolo had failed to comply strictly with the requirements for serving a foreign state under Section 1608(a) of the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The court also found that he had not adequately explained the failure to comply with those requirements.
The dismissal without prejudice meant that the case was not necessarily barred from being filed again.
Okolo returned to court days later, filing the second lawsuit on June 6, 2019.
CROSS RIVER GOVERNMENT DID NOT APPEAR AS CASE PROGRESSED
On June 17, 2019, the court clerk sent the summons, complaint, civil cover sheet and notice of suit by FedEx to the Cross River State Government, care of the Commissioner for Health at the state Ministry of Health.
A docket entry dated July 3, 2019, recorded that the package had been received.
The state government did not file an answer or enter an appearance. On September 26, 2019, the court clerk issued a certificate of default against it.
However, a certificate of default does not automatically entitle a claimant to a default judgment. The court must still establish that the legal requirements for service, jurisdiction and the requested relief have been satisfied.
The case subsequently passed through several judicial assignments.
It was initially assigned to Judge Deborah A. Batts, who died while Okolo’s default motion was pending. The case was reassigned to Judge Analisa Torres on February 20, 2020.
Judge Torres terminated the pending motion, issued an order requiring Okolo to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and on March 21, 2021, denied the default motion again.
She also directed the claimant to address the state’s potential liability and whether the court had jurisdiction over it under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The case was reassigned to Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on August 17, 2021.
SECOND SERVICE ATTEMPT ALSO FAILED
In an effort to comply with the applicable legal requirements, the court clerk mailed the summons, amended complaint, civil cover sheet and notice of suit by FedEx to Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs on April 29, 2021.
Okolo’s proof of delivery indicated that the package arrived on May 5, 2021.
However, the delivery documentation contained a significant defect.
It recorded that no signature was available because a signature was not required for the shipment.
Under Section 1608(a)(3) of the United States Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, service by mail under that provision must be made in a manner requiring a signed receipt.
The distinction became central to the proceedings because proper service is a legal prerequisite to obtaining a judgment against a foreign state under the applicable statutory framework.
On October 13, 2021, Judge Briccetti ordered the Cross River State Government to show cause why a default judgment should not be entered against it.
The state government did not appear at the hearing.
The matter was subsequently referred to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause for a report and recommendation on the application for default judgment.
In his report dated November 16, 2022, Judge Krause concluded that both attempts at service had failed.
The first package had been addressed to the state government rather than to the head of Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as required under the relevant statutory provision.
The second package had been correctly addressed but was sent using a method that did not require a signed receipt.
Judge Krause recommended denying the default motion while allowing Okolo one final opportunity to serve the amended complaint properly.
Judge Briccetti adopted that recommendation on December 5, 2022.
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BECAME THE DECISIVE ISSUE
Beyond the service difficulties, the case encountered another fundamental legal obstacle: whether the United States court had jurisdiction to hear a claim against the Cross River State Government.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act generally protects foreign states from being sued in United States courts, subject to specified exceptions.
Okolo relied on the commercial activity exception in seeking to pursue his claims.
However, the court’s subsequent analysis found that the requirements for applying that exception had not been satisfied.
In a further report and recommendation, Judge Krause concluded that the Cross River State Government was immune from the lawsuit.
The court found that the concession agreement concerned activities to be undertaken in Nigeria, that the alleged breaches occurred in Nigeria and that the agreement did not require payments or other performance in the United States.
Consequently, the court determined that the alleged conduct did not produce the direct effect in the United States required for the commercial activity exception relied upon by the claimant.
Without the necessary jurisdiction, the court could not proceed to determine the merits of the contractual dispute.
The court also concluded that it could not reach the tortious interference claim in the absence of jurisdiction.
Okolo filed objections to the report and recommendation, and the court granted him an extension to present them.
APRIL 12, 2024: CASE DISMISSED WITHOUT A TRIAL ON THE MERITS
On April 12, 2024, Judge Briccetti overruled Okolo’s objections and adopted Judge Krause’s report and recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the court.
The court denied the application for default judgment and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judgment was entered, and the case was closed.
The outcome meant that the claimant did not obtain the requested default judgment against the Cross River State Government.
It also meant that the court did not conduct a trial to determine whether the state government had breached the 2014 concession agreement.
The distinction is important: the dismissal was based on jurisdictional grounds, not a judicial finding that the state government had fulfilled its contractual obligations or that the claimant’s allegations were false.
Likewise, the absence of an appearance by the state government did not automatically establish liability.
The court’s decision turned on the legal requirements governing service on a foreign state and the limits of the court’s jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
QUESTIONS OVER THE HANDLING OF THE INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE
The litigation spanned several years, beginning with the first lawsuit in 2018 and ending with the dismissal of the second case in April 2024.
Throughout the second case, the court record, as described in the documents reviewed by NaijaonpointOnline, contains no appearance or substantive response from the Cross River State Government.
The record also shows that the claimant’s efforts to secure a default judgment repeatedly encountered legal obstacles, first over service of process and subsequently over sovereign immunity.
The case therefore ended without a judicial determination of the substantive dispute surrounding the Obudu hospital concession.
For the state government, the dismissal brought the federal court proceedings to a close without a judgment establishing liability under the agreement.
For the claimant, it meant that the court did not grant the requested default judgment or determine the alleged contractual breaches.
The case also illustrates how procedural requirements and sovereign immunity can determine the outcome of litigation involving foreign governments, even where the underlying dispute concerns a commercial agreement.
WHAT THE CASE DOES — AND DOES NOT — ESTABLISH
The available court record establishes that the Cross River State Government was sued in the Southern District of New York over the Obudu hospital concession, that the claimant sought a default judgment and that the case was ultimately dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
It does not establish that the state government was found guilty of breaching the concession agreement.
Nor does the dismissal establish that the agreement was properly performed or that the claimant had no legitimate contractual grievance.
Those questions remained unresolved because the court did not reach the merits of the dispute.
NaijaonpointOnline’s examination of the case highlights a legal dispute involving a major public hospital project, an agreement executed in 2014 and proceedings that crossed successive state administrations before ending without a trial.
The central unresolved question remains what happened to the underlying contractual dispute over the Obudu hospital project, since the New York court’s dismissal did not determine whether the agreement had been breached.
NaijaonpointOnline reports on the basis of the court proceedings and findings described above. The allegations concerning the concession agreement remain allegations and should not be treated as judicially established facts.
TRACKNEWS ONLINE
Investigative Desk | Accountability. Transparency. Public Interest.