The 1st Respondent felt unhappy with the manner in which the 2nd Respondent acquired 50% of its interest in Oil Mining lease (OML) 121. After serving the appropriate notice of intention to commence legal proceedings on the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent filed an Originating Summons at the Federal High Court in which it sought for the determination of the following questions:-
-
1.
"A declaration that the President, Vice-President or Officers in the Public Service of the Federation Cannot grant any oil Prospecting Licence (OPL) or any interest whatsoever in respect of any 'mineral oils and natural gas in, under or, upon the territorial waters and Executive Economic Zone of Nigeria" to any person or persons except under and in accordance with the provisions of the Petroleum Act Cap.P.10 of the Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, more especially Section 2(1)(a)(b) and (c) as well as Section 2(3).
-
2.
A declaration that by virtue of paragraph 8 of the First Schedule to the Petroleum Act, the first Respondent cannot grant an Oil Mining Lease to any other person or persons Except The Holder Of An Oil Prospecting Licence.
-
3.
A declaration that the President, Vice-President or Officers in the Public Service of the Federation Cannot acquire any interest in an Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL) or Oil Mining Lease (OML) except under and in accordance with the provisions of:-
-
a.
Paragraph 35 of the first schedule to the Petroleum Act;
-
b.
an order for general damages of N100,000 against the defendant.
-
4.
A declaration that the purported acquisition of 50% of the applicants' interest or any interest whatsoever in OML 127 in as much as it was not done in compliance with the provisions of the law and the constitution as stated above is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and cannot confer any interest whatsoever in OML 127 in the second Respondent (that is due process of the law must be followed).
-
<5.
A perpetual injunction restraining the second Respondent, its assigns, servants, privies, subsidiaries whomsoever, howsoever, whomsoever from exercising any right in the said OML 127 or any part or portion thereof."
The learned trial Judge heard the matter and in his reserved judgment handed out on 31st May, 2006, the suit was dismissed. The 1st Respondent herein felt irked with the poise of the learned trial Judge. It appealed to the Court of Appeal, herein referred to as the Court below.
The Court below heard the appeal and in its own reserved judgment handed out on 10th December, 2007 the trial Court's decision was set aside. The Appellant who was the 2nd Defendant at the trial Court appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Appellant subsequently brought a motion on notice dated 10th September, 2008 for an order granting stay of execution of judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court.
