n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Statoil Nig Ltd V. Inducon Nig Ltd & Anor (2018) CLR 4(n) (SC)

Judgement delivered on April 13th 2018

Brief

  • Reply Brief
  • Fresh Evidence on Appeal
  • Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act
  • Order 4 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011
  • Order 2 Rule 12(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1985, as amended

Facts

This is an interlocutory appeal by the appellants against the Ruling of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division (the Court below herein), delivered on the 12th of March, 2012 in Appeal No. CA/L/284/2011, between the parties herein. The Court below dismissed the appellant's application of 7th March, 2011 wherein it sought leave of the Court below to adduce further evidence. That dismissal of the appellant's application by the Court below is the subject matter of this appeal.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

By a writ of summons of 22/2/2010, the (plaintiffs) respondents (herein), instituted an action against the (defendant) appellant (herein), at the Federal High Court, Lagos (trial Court), alleging that:

  • a
    "Sometime in 1979, the Federal Government of Nigeria nationalized all the assets and interest of British Petroleum Company Limited (BP) and British Petroleum were compelled to leave Nigeria.
  • b
    In 1990, BP informed the respondents that it was interested in pursuing opportunities in the Nigerian Oil Industry in alliance with the appellant.
  • c
    The respondents were retained by the alliance to negotiate its entry into the Nigerian oil industry.
  • d
    The respondents succeeded in bringing the BP/Statoil alliance into Nigeria in 1991 further to which the Alliance applied for and was granted some concession acreage.
  • e
    It was agreed that the respondents' consideration for services rendered to the alliance would include "a leasehold interest in the concession expressed as a net profit interest in the production from any oil mining lease allocated to the alliance pursuant to the efforts of the plaintiffs."
  • f
    BP confirmed the agreement of the parties by assigning a 1.5% leasehold interest and thereby executing a formal Net profit interest agreement with the respondents.
  • g
    The appellant has however refused to fulfill its obligation by executing a similar Net Profit Interest Agreement with the Respondents."
-->

The plaintiff then sought several reliefs from the trial Court including:

  • a
    A declaration that the respondents are the assignees of a leasehold interest or Net Profit interest of 1.5% out of the appellant's interest in the Agbani field in consideration of the business development successes it achieved for the appellant.
  • b
    A declaration that the respondents are entitled to a Net Profit interest of 1.5% in any and all of the appellant's oil and gas interests resulting from the business development efforts of the respondents.

    • Other reliefs sought by the plaintiffs/respondents were ancillary to the aforestated two reliefs. The defendant/appellant filed an amended Statement of Defence dated 25th May, 2010, denying the allegations in the amended statement of claim and respondents' entitlement to the reliefs sought. They also filed a reply dated 11th June, 2010. Thus, issues were joined by the parties. At the end of trial, the trial Court delivered its judgment on the 6th of December, 2010 wherein it gave judgment for the respondents. Aggrieved by the trial Court's judgment, the appellant appealed to the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal (Court below) seeking to set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

    Meanwhile, the appellant filed its brief of argument on 7/3/2011 in the Court below and thereafter filed an application on the same date seeking the leave of the Court below to adduce or rely on further evidence under Order 4 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2011. Affidavits in support and counter affidavits were filed and exchanged by the parties.

    On the 2nd of February, 2012 the Court below took arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties on the application for leave to adduce further evidence and adjourned ruling to the 12th of March, 2012. On the 12th of March, 2012, the Court below delivered its Ruling in which it dismissed the application for leave to adduce further evidence.



    On 23rd of March, 2012, the appellant brought an application seeking leave of the Court below to appeal against its Ruling dismissing the application for leave to adduce further evidence. Leave was granted to the appellant by the Court below, hence this interlocutory appeal.

Issues

Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal

Read More