Join our Telegram group and receive breaking and trending news updates directly on your phone.
Join for News Updates âś•
By Correspondent in Abuja.
(C) Google.
The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday struck out a suit challenging the proposed allocation of four oil fields, ruling that the case was fundamentally defective and outside its jurisdiction to entertain.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Emeka Nwite upheld preliminary objections filed by the defendants, including the Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), Heineken Lokpobiri, the Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission.
The judge held that the plaintiffs,Hi-Rev Oil Limited and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Ltd,failed to comply with a mandatory legal requirement by not serving a valid pre-action notice as stipulated under the Petroleum Industry Act 2021.
Justice Nwite noted that the omission was fatal to the case, as it deprived the court of the jurisdiction needed to proceed.
He explained that a proper pre-action notice is designed to inform defendants of grievances, outline intended legal remedies, and allow room for resolution before litigation.
According to the court, the notice allegedly served by the plaintiffs fell short of statutory requirements and could not be regarded as a valid legal notice.
The judge emphasized that jurisdiction is the foundation of any judicial proceeding, warning that even a well-delivered judgment becomes null if jurisdiction is lacking.
“The objection of the first defendant succeeds. Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction and the suit is hereby dismissed,” Justice Nwite ruled.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2678/2025, was instituted by the two oil firms seeking to halt the allocation of four oil fields—Yorla South in Rivers State, Akiapiri and Diebu Creek East in Bayelsa State, and Idiok in Akwa Ibom State.
Our correspondent recalls that the plaintiffs had asked the court to restrain the defendants from allocating the fields, claiming they were replacements for previously allocated assets that were later withdrawn.
However, the counsel to the minister, Michael Numa, argued that the plaintiffs had no enforceable legal right to the oil fields, stressing that allocation in the oil sector follows strict statutory procedures, not mere promises.
He further contended that no specific allocation had been made to the plaintiffs and that the court could not create rights where none existed, particularly in a sector governed by clear regulatory frameworks.
Similarly, the Attorney-General’s counsel described the suit as speculative, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, while the regulatory commission maintained that the claims did not confer any automatic legal entitlement.
The defence also pointed out that the action was filed outside the statutory time limits prescribed by relevant laws, further weakening the plaintiffs’ case.
In response, the counsel to the plaintiffs, Ambrose Unaeze, insisted that his clients had legitimate expectations based on prior engagements with the government, including payments and agreements, and urged the court to dismiss the objections.
He argued that without judicial intervention, the oil fields in question would be allocated to other parties, thereby undermining the plaintiffs’ interests.
But the court found the arguments unconvincing, agreeing with the defence that promises or prior discussions do not override statutory provisions governing oil field allocation.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.
