A Federal High Court, Abuja, on Wednesday, ordered the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) not to take further action in respect of the oil mining lease suit filed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited pending the hearing and determination of the substantive matter.
Justice Inyang gave the directive shortly after counsel to NMDPRA, Ama Etuwewe, SAN, sought an adjournment to enable him respond to Mobile’s application.
“You also know that when parties have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, they stay all actions until the determination of the matter.
“That is the essence of the ex-parte motion, the interlocutory application, sought in the suit,” he said.
Upon resumed hearing in the case, Etuwewe informed the court that he was only briefed about the matter the previous day after his client was served with the originating process on June 22, and the interlocutory application on June 27.
The senior lawyer said he would need 14 days to respond to the processes served on them.
Justice Ekwo then restated that since neither of the parties would be prejudiced by adjourning the matter, “you stay on your own and don’t disturb each other”.
Ituah Imhanze, who appeared for Mobil, thanked the court for giving the directive that parties should not overreach each other pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
Although Etuwewe told the court that proper parties had not been joined in the suit, the judge asked him to respond to the plaintiff’s application first.
Justice Ekwo, who gave the defendant 14 days to respond to Mobile’s motion, also gave seven days to the oil company to file their response after it must have been served.
He adjourned the matter until July 27 for hearing.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mobil, the oil giant, had, in the ex-parte motion marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/844/2023, sued NMDPRA as sole defendant.
In the motion dated June 16 and filed June 19 by its lawyer, Prof. Fabian Ajogwu, SAN, Mobil prayed for two orders.
Read Also:
“An order of interim injunction restraining the defendant, its agents from imposing any sanction, penalties or fines on the plaintiff/applicant or doing anything or taking any step or actions to frustrate the interest of the plaintiff/applicant in respect of its operations in Oil Mining Leases 67, 68, 70 and 104, or otherwise related to the subject matter of this suit before this honourable court, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for interlocutory injunction.
Giving seven grounds why its motion should be granted, the lawyer argued that the company is the operator of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC Ltd}/ MPN Joint Venture in OMLs 67, 68, 70 and 104 and its field facilities and operating facilities are interconnected by a network of pipelines with high degree of dependency and integration.
Ajogwu argued that the Petroleum Industry Act by virtue of Section 8 (d) and 318 provided that the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission should consider and be in charge of integrated operations and should consider integrated operations as upstream operations and grant relevant approvals in that regard.
He said that Mobile made an official application to the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission for consideration as an integrated operation via a letter dated Dec. 6, 2022.
“The application was considered and approved by the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, the only statutorily appropriate authority and the approval communicated to the plaintiff/applicant via a letter dated Feb. 2, 2023,” he said.
Ajogwu, however, said that the NMDPRA, through letters dated March 28 and May 8 challenged and sought to nullify the approval granted by commission.
He said the commission claimed oversight functions over aspects of the Mobil’s integrated operations which the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, by its letter of Feb. 2, had already claimed oversight authority and granted approval on.
The senior lawyer alleged that NMDPRA further threatened to sanction the oil company, its chairman and managing director and any other officer for any contravention of its directives or regulations.
He further alleged that a conflict had thereby ensued from the regulatory bodies claiming oversight over integrated petroleum operations which Mobil currently operates.
Ajogwu, who accused NMDPRA of ramping up pressure on his client to comply with its directives and submit to its regulatory authority, also alleged that the defendant had further made damning allegations of economic sabotage and crude oil theft against Mobil.
He prayed the court to grant their reliefs to ensure that Mobil’s “operations are not jeopardised by heavy and unlawful sanctions, and reputational damage by the defendant.”
(NAN)
