The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday dismissed a suit filed against the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), Heineken Lokpobiri, challenging the proposed allocation of four oil fields.
The plaintiffs; Hi-Rev Oil Limited and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Ltd, had instituted the case, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2678/2025.
Justice Emeka Nwite, in a ruling on the preliminary objections filed by the defence, held that the suit was incompetent.
Justice Nwite held that the plaintiffs, having failed to serve the defendants with a valid pre-action notice in compliance with Section 308 of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), 2021, robbed the court off the jurisdiction to hear the suit.
He said a valid pre-action letter would notify the defendants of the plaintiffs’ grievances, the intention to seek legal redress within a definite time, the declaratory reliefs that would be sought, among others.
The judge, who said the plaintiffs’ letter which they claimed they served on the defendants before instituting the suit did not meet the condition precedent, said it fell short of the statutory prescriptions for a legal notice.
He said though jurisdiction is fundamental in the decision of a court, a judgment well delivered will be a nullity without jurisdiction.
Justice Nwite also agreed with the argument of the Petroleum minister that the plaintiffs failed to disclose reseanable cause of action in the suit.
He said serious jurisdiction and competence issues had arisen which cannot be brushed aside.
“The objection of the 1st defendant succeeds.
“Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction and the suit is therefore dismissed. I so hold,” he ruled.
The plaintiffs; Hi-Rev Oil Limited and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Ltd, had instituted the case, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2678/2025.
The plaintiffs sued the Minister of Petroleum, Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) as 1st to 3rd defendants respectively.
Justice Nwite had, on Dec. 22, 2025, ordered the minister, the AGF and NUPRC to show cause why the reliefs of the plaintiffs in their motion ex-parte should not be granted.
The judge made the order after Ambrose Unaeze, who appeared for the plaintiffs, moved the motion dated and filed on Dec. 11, 2025.
The oil and gas companies had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants or whomsoever is acting on their behest from selling, assigning or allocating the Yorla South (Petroleum Prospecting Licence (PPL) 2A32 – OML 11) located in Rivers.
The order is to also restrain the defendants from allocating Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 – OML 25) located in Bayelsa; Diebu Creek East (OML 32) also located in Bayelsa and Idiok (PPL 2A41 – OML 67) located in Akwa Ibom, “same being direct replacements for Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, previously allocated to the plaintiff but was later withdrawn by the defendants, pending the hearing of the interlocutory application in this suit.”
But the trio, in separate preliminary objections, submitted that the plaintiffs lacked the legal right to institute the matter.
They urged the court to dismiss the suit.
Moving his preliminary objection, Michael Numa, SAN, who appeared for Lokpobiri on the last adjourned date, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction since there was no specific “allocation” of oil fields to the plaintiffs.
Numa stated that the plaintiffs contended that the Federal Government had promised them additional oil fields beyond those allocated in 2002, but allocation is usually made through proper bid processes.
“Allocation must follow due procedures, and a party must meet technical and legal requirements before a specific allocation arises,” he submitted.
He further stressed that the Federal Government has statutory powers to allocate oil fields and that a promise alone does not create an enforceable right.
“Therefore, there is no reasonable cause of action in this case.
“And the court cannot create a legal right for the claimants because the process of allocation is always founded on statutory provisions meant to be protected by the court, not for the court to create one,” he said.
He added that the court cannot act on promises where no specific asset exists to ground the relief sought, particularly as one of the fields had already been assigned to another party.
The lawyer argued that the plaintiff failed to serve his client with a pre-action notice in line with Section 308 of the PIA, 2021.
Similarly, the AGF, represented by Oyinlola Kolawosho, in his preliminary objection filed on Jan. 5, asked the court to dismiss the case of the plaintiffs, describing it as “speculative.”
He claimed that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi (legal right) over the four oil fields since no agreement existed.
Also, the NUPRC, represented by O.M. Atoyeji, in its preliminary objection filed on Jan. 20, also urged the court to strike out the case.
Atoyeji argued that the promises relied upon by the plaintiffs did not automatically confer a legal right.
He also contended that the action was not filed within the statutory period prescribed by the Public Officers Protection Act and the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA), 2021.
Responding to the defendants’ objections, Unaeze said the plaintiffs had the right to court protection.
He stated that without the court compelling the defendants, the fields would be allocated to the public.
The lawyer said the parties had held several meetings with the defendants and paid substantial amount of money as promotion fees.
He said the plaintiffs had also been granted refineries and licences, but the government “now claimed they had no rights.”
“We are not saying your lordship should interpret the judgement or enforce the consent judgement they referred to; we are talking about the responsibility placed on them by that judgement,” he said.
Unaeze therefore urged the court to dismiss the defendants’ objections.
Responding, Numa disagrees with Unaeze, arguing that the signature bonus paid in 2002 predated the current statutory provisions of the PIA and that the original claim had been superseded by the settlement and consent judgement.
He said references to the out-of-court settlement could not form the basis of the current action.
The defence lawyers then Informed the court that third parties were already showing interest in the oil fields, hence, the need to know if the Jan. 5 order of status quo was still binding.(NAN)
