FIVE Justices of the Supreme Court, led by Justice G.A. Oguntade, have dismissed the objection of Chevron Nigeria Limited to the propriety of the Lone Star Drilling Nigeria Limited, instituting a $10 million suit against the company over alleged breach of contract in 1996. The apex court upheld the judgment of the High Court, Warri, Delta State, and Court of Appeal, Benin City, that the respondent/plaintiff had a valid cause for action against the appellant/defendant, which is the American oil conglomerate.
�I am satisfied that the court below was right. The defendant, it would seem, was in too much hurry to have the plaintiff�s case terminated; and the plaintiff in the process driven away from the judgment seat before airing its case. That, it must be said, is not the way the court operates. A party ought not to be precluded from putting across his case in a full hearing except on the clearest indication that the action is denuded of all merits even on the supposition that the averments in the statement of claim are deemed as admitted by a defendant�, Justice Oguntade said in the lead judgment, delivered on July 13.
Lonestar had brought a suit against Chevron for special and general damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract of $10 million before a Warri High Court and the parties filed and exchanged pleadings. But the defendant brought an application, urging the court to dismiss the action for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being incompetent, frivolous and vexatious in circumstance.
The trial judge in his ruling, December 3, 1999, held that the plaintiff�s suit disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The defendant, dissatisfied with the ruling, brought an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Benin City, which on April 4, 2001, dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the claim in the contract by the plaintiff had nothing to do with admiralty as formulated by the defendant. However, Chevron, still dissatisfied, went to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the Appeal Court that the claim of the plaintiff was clearly spelt out and it has to do with the sum of $10 million special and general damages and whether the transaction was an invitation to treat or a contract would be decided by the court at the trial.