The Federal High Court of Nigeria sitting in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, presided by Hon. Justice Ayo Emmanuel, has in a consolidated ruling delivered on the 24/2/2025 on the preliminary objections filed by Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission, Halkin Exploration and Production Limited & Halkin Global Investment Limited, dismissed suit no. FHC/YNG/CS/223/2024, filed by Bayelsa Oil Company Limited and affirmed Halkin Exploration and Production Limited as the rightful holder of oil mining license in respect of Atala Marginal Field (OML 46).
Bayelsa Oil Company Limited had in a writ of summons filed on the 20th of June, 2024, approached the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State asking it to declare that the award of Atala Marginal Field to Halkin Exploration and Production Limited, the 2nd Defendant, is unlawful, null and void and sought for the restoration of the company’s full rights over the Atala Marginal Field amongst 15 other reliefs.
But in a ruling delivered on 24/2/2025, Hon. Justice Ayo Emmanuel held that three preliminary objections filed and argued by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission – Chikaosolu Ojukwu SAN alongside those filed by Kehinde Ogunwumiju SAN, OFR, and Ademola A. Abimbola SAN respectively for Halkin Exploration and Production Limited and Halkin Global Investment Limited, which challenged the jurisdiction of the said Court to hear and determine the Plaintiff’s suit were meritorious on all grounds.
Justice Ayo Emmanuel held that the suit filed by Bayelsa Oil Company Limited was caught up by statute of limitation having regard to section 307(2) of the Petroleum Industry Act and section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act which mandates that such actions should be commenced within 3 months from when the cause of action arose.
The Court held that Bayelsa Oil Company Limited’s cause of action arose on 6th of April 2020 when its interest in Atala Marginal Field was revoked and on the 7th of July 2021 when Halkin Exploration and Production Limited was awarded the revoked interest. The action was therefore held to be statute barred and the Court declined jurisdiction.
The Court further held that Bayelsa Oil Company Limited had failed to comply with provisions of paragraph 42 of the Petroleum Act 1969 which was the applicable law at the time the dispute arose. By the provision, Bayelsa Oil Company Limited was supposed to have submitted the dispute arising between it and the Minister of Petroleum sued as 5th Defendant to an arbitration panel for determination before proceeding to file an action before the Federal High Court. The Court deemed the failure to comply with the provisions of the Petroleum Act, as a failure to fulfil a condition precedent stipulated by law and lacks jurisdiction to determine the suit.
The Court also held that having submitted itself to the administrative review panel set up by the Nigerian Upstream Regulatory Commission pursuant to its special investigative powers under sections 26 and 27 of the Petroleum Industry Act, the only option left for Bayelsa Oil Company Limited to question the correctness or otherwise of the findings of the Commission which was unfavourable to it was through action for judicial review within three months as provided by Order 34 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules and not by filing an action by writ of summons particularly as it sought mandatory orders to compel the Commission to perform public duties.
Hon. Justice Ayo Emmanuel further held in the same ruling that upon a clear review of the reliefs sought by Bayelsa Oil Company Limited, the Court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to determine same as part of the reliefs dealt with tort of misstatement, contract, master- servant relationship, tort of conversion which the Court by section 251 of the 1999 Constitution lacks jurisdiction over.
The Court further held that Bayelsa Oil Company had failed to show that it has locus standi to institute the action having not shown to have participated in the second round of bidding for the oil filed as directed by the President or to have questioned the revocation of its interest in OML 46. The Court reasoned that having failed to show that it participated in the bid process, it cannot rely on the earlier revocation and re-award to rest its case as the matters were already statute barred.
Having regard to the earlier suit filed by Bayelsa Oil Company Limited before the Lagos Judicial Division in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/597/2020, Justice Ayo Emmanuel held that the later suit was an abuse of court process
In all, the Court held that it lacked jurisdictions and consequently dismissed Bayelsa Oil Company Limited suit in its entirety for want of jurisdiction.
