A Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday ordered a Norwegian oil firm, Statoil Nigeria Limited to ensure that proceeds accruing to it from the 18.5 per cent interest in the Agbami oil field operated by ChevronTexaco and located in concession acreages of OML 127 and OML 128, OML 129 and OPL 315 should remain within Nigeria and not repatriated outside the shores of the country pending the final determination of the suit.
Ruling on the application brought by a businessman, Dr. John Abebe against the oil firm, the presiding judge of the court, Justice Charles Archibong, however, said the order should not in any way affect Statoil’s business operations.
Justice Archibong also ordered that notice of the order should be served on the Ministries of Petroleum and Finance, Nigeria Customs Service, Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) for them to be aware order and appropriately watch.
He subsequently adjourned the case to June 22, 23 and 2 for commencement of trial
Abebe had asked the court to quickly stop Statoil from dissipating proceeds realised from the production of crude oil at the Agbami Oil Field. He prayed the court to compel the Norwegian oil firm, its associates and partners to deposit all revenues, income, funds, profits proceeds and earnings from the oil firm’s 18.5 per cent interest in the Agbami oil field operated by ChevronTexaco into an interest bearing escrow account with a reputable financial institution within the jurisdiction of the court pending the final determination of the suit.
At the last adjourned date, counsel to Abebe and his company, Inducon, Mr. Uche Nwokedi (SAN) had argued that because his clients have the legal rights to the orders being sought, and the fact that a prima facie case has been established against the defendant, it was imperative for the court to grant the orders.
He argued that if the orders were not granted, then the purpose for which the case was instituted would be defeated, adding that there was the likelihood of the defendant dissipating to the revenue, income and profits of the company.
Nwokedi stated that once the revenue, income and profits of the company leave the shores of the country, they might not be able to track it, therefore, he is asking that account be opened with a bank in the country where all revenue, income and profits of the company would be deposited.
Responding, counsel to Statoil, Mr Fidelis Oditta (QC, SAN) said the plaintiffs do not deserve the orders, saying that there was no agreement between his client and the plaintiffs to pay them 1.5 per cent interest in firm’s profits.
Oditta argued that he was shocked that if there an oral agreement as claimed by the plaintiff, he did not use his position as the vice chairman of the oil firm from 1991 to 1997, to regularise the agreement, stating that from the plaintiffs’ own evidence, there was no conceivable evidence to show that there an agreement between his client and the plaintiffs.
He argued that what the plaintiffs were seeking amounted to pre-garnishee order, positing to that get it the plaintiffs must satisfy the court that there was indeed an agreement with his client.
The learned counsel submitted that the principle of balance of convenience would weigh heavily against any of the injunctions made by the court.
He said in the alternative to the order being sought, the plaintiffs should ask the court to order that the defendant make a bank guarantee up to the tune of US$4million, especially since production at the Agbami Oil Field started in July 2008.
In the substance suit, Abebe is claiming that Statoil agreed to pay him 1.5 percent of the profit from some assets for helping the company expand in Nigeria in the 1990s.
He said the defendant has refused to sign or otherwise give effect to the net profit interest agreement in order to frustrate him from receiving its accruable income from current production, even though by as a letter dated November 15, 1991, the defendant had conveyed to the plaintiffs, its willingness to accept the net profit interest agreement.
The plaintiffs, among other things, therefore urged the court to declare that they are entitled to a net profit interest of 1.5 percent out of the defendant’s interest in the Agbami oil field in consideration of the business development successes it achieved for the defendant.
In his statement of claim, he said in April 1990, he was informed by British Petroleum (BP) that it was interested in pursuing opportunities in the Nigerian oil industry together with its partner Statoil of Stavanger, Norway with whom it had entered into an Alliance agreement.
According to him, the alliance, as it was represented to him, would present the first ever opportunity for Statoil, then an indigenous Norwegian company, to operate outside its home base, Norway and to venture into West Africa, amongst others.
He stated that at all material times, it was the representation of the Alliance to him that BP and Statoil would be equal partners on a 50:50 basis in the alliance and that although the alliance would not be set up as a separate legal personality, the two companies would operate as one.
He contended that it was stated to him by the Alliance jointly and severally at different times verbally and in writing that participation of BP and Statoil in the alliance was to be on identical terms and that all agreement reached would be performed on equal terms by both parties without more.
He further averred that his business development efforts on behalf of the Statoil/BP had resulted in a profitable portfolio of petroleum interests now converted and defined as oil mining lease interests pursuant to the provisions of the Petroleum Act, some of which are currently producing.
However, in the statement issued shortly after the ruling by the spokesperson of Statoil, Mr. Kai Nielsen, the oil firm said it does not agree with the ruling and promised to file an appeal and stay of execution.
It also added that while doing this, it will not under any legal obligation to implement the court ruling pending the appeal.
It said: “It is at this stage not clear when the court of appeal will hear Statoil’s appeal. However, based on the filing of the appeal and the application for stay of execution, Statoil will be under no legal obligation to implement today’s ruling by the court pending the appeal.
“Statoil remains confident that it is in a strong legal position to reject all claims put forward by Mr. Abebe in this case. Accordingly, Statoil will continue to assert its rights in the Nigerian courts with all available legal means”. It added
Describing the Abebe’s claims as unfounded, Statoil said the complainants (Mr. John Abebe and his company) were retained by Statoil in Nigeria throughout most of 1990s.
“The role of Dr. Abebe, the company stated was to offer advice and assistance in connection with Statoil’s business in Nigeria. For a period, Mr. Abebe also had a seat on the board of Statoil’s Nigerian subsidiary. Statoil was introduced to Mr. Abebe through the alliance with the British Company BP in 1991. The BP-Statoil alliance, the company said was dissolved in 1999.”