Supreme Court Asks Statoil to Maintain Status quo

Davidson Iriekpen

The Supreme Court has asked the Norwegian oil firm, Statoil Nigeria Limited, to maintain status quo following the orders and judgments of the Federal High Court and Court of Appeal pending the determination of its substantive appeal.

The court made the order in a short ruling when parties in the case appeared before it on Tuesday to argue the interlocutory appeal filed by the foreign oil firm against the judgments of Federal High Court and Court of Appeal in favour of an indigenous company Inducon, Nigeria Limited and its owner, Dr. John Abebe.

While Statoil was represented by Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Abebe was represented by Mr. Uche Nwokedi (SAN).

After listening to the sub missions of the counsel, Justice Tanko Mohammed who led four other justices of the court, ordered parties in the suit to put all the applications they had filed in abeyance pending the appeal.

He said the best option is to hear the substantive appeal which would resolve the case.

Justice Mohammed therefore fixed October 22 to hear the substantive appeal.

He consequently maintained that the best option for the parties is to try and maintain the status quo anti-bella till when the judgment is delivered on the substantive appeal.

“The appeal will be held on October 22, 2018. Meanwhile, all applications from both sides are put in abeyance until appeal.

“Parties should try and maintain the status quo antibella. This is the best option for now,” he said.

In the substantive suit, Inducon and its promoter, Abebe filed an action against Statoil at the Federal High Court in Lagos, contending that in April 1990, he was informed by British Petroleum (BP) that it was interested in pursuing opportunities in the Nigerian oil industry together with its partner, Statoil of Stavanger, Norway with whom it had entered into an alliance agreement.

According to him, the alliance, as it was represented to him, would present the first ever opportunity for Statoil, then an indigenous Norwegian company, to operate outside its home base, Norway and to venture into West Africa, among others.

In his statement of claim, Inducon stated that at all material times, it was the representation of the alliance to him that BP and Statoil would be equal partners on a 50:50 basis in the alliance and that although the alliance would not be set up as a separate legal personality, the two companies would operate as one.

Abebe, the promoter of Inducon, added that he was also instrumental to ensuring that the production sharing contracts for the blocks were signed with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), adding that all these were achieved due to his extensive contacts in government and the oil and gas sector. He argued that Statoil was granted those blocks because of the policy of indigenous participation and transfer of technology in the oil industry and that since Statoil entered Nigeria as a result of that policy, it denied that the policy exists and has failed to live up to its undertaking to encourage the promotion of indigenous participation in the Nigerian oil industry.

Even the witnesses from the Department of Petroleum Resources and others, corroborated Abebe’s statement of claim.

But in its defence, Statoil described Abebe’s claims as unfounded, adding he and his company were retained by Statoil in Nigeria throughout most of 1990s and that the contract had long been terminated.

It stated that the role of Abebe was to offer advice and assistance in connection with its business in Nigeria and that for a period, he had a seat on the board of Statoil’s Nigerian subsidiary until the alliance it had BP was dissolved in 1999.

Statoil wondered if there was actually an oral agreement as claimed by Abebe, why did he not use his position as the vice-chairman of the oil firm from 1991 to 1997 to regularise it, stating that from the plaintiffs’ own evidence, there was no conceivable evidence to show that there was an agreement between them.

In the judgment of the Federal High Court, it affirmed Abebe’s submissions and ordered the oil firm to pay Abebe and his company, 1.5per cent net profit interest accruable to it from the three oil blocks allocated to them for bringing the firm to Nigeria to explore oil resources.

The court also held that there was indeed an agreement between him, BP and Statoil contrary to the claim of the oil firm, which must be honoured.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, Statoil headed to the Court of Appeal which later dismissed its appeal and upheld the judgment of the Federal High Court.

However, while the appeal was pending, a new twist was added to the case when Abebe and his company, hinging their applications on an interlocutory orders of the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal which restrained Statoil from repatriating to any foreign account, its monies, revenues and earnings derived from the sale of crude oil, accused the Norwegian company of transferring over $4billion of its income from Nigeria against the orders of the courts. In an affidavit and application filed at the Supreme Court through Nwokedi, the businessman asked that the orders of the two lower courts be enforced and that Statoil be made to return the $4billion to Nigeria.

They also urged the court to restrain the Norwegian oil firm from further repatriating all revenues accruing to it from the Agbami oil field and all other interests in Nigeria to any foreign account through any commercial bank in the country pending the hearing and determination of the substantive appeal.