Chevron Nigeria Limited V. Napoleon a. O. A. Aguma & Ors (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PATRICK IBE AMAIZU, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling delivered by Justice Aina of the Benin Division of the Federal High Court, on the 14th day of January 2000. The Ruling was sequel to a preliminary objection raised in a motion brought by the Plaintiffs/Judgment Creditors, in suit No. FHC/B/172/96. They are hereinafter referred to as respondents.

In the said motion, the respondents prayed for an Order to show cause by Chevron Nigeria Ltd herein after referred to as the appellant –

1) Why it should not be ordered to revisit all such payments made by it (not together with the Contractors) in respect of the Escravos Gas Pipeline Right of way (ROW) passing through Ugbagira in Ugborodo which payments were made to the 7th Defendants/Judgment/Debtor herein in that the said payments show that the amounts which were allegedly received by members 7th Defendants/ Judgment/Debtor herein in that the said payments show that the amounts which were allegedly received by members of the 7th Defendant/Judgment/Debtor and signed for by them is less than the amount actually due to 7th Defendant/Judgment/Debtor.

Why it should not be ordered to pay the sum of N25 million which comprises the difference between what is in fact due to the 7th Defendant/Judgment/Debtor and what the said members of the 7th Defendant/Judgment Debtor actually received or any other sum that this Honourable Court may adjudge the Respondent liable to pay with respect to the order to show cause herein mentioned.

And for such further and/or other orders as this Honourable Court may seem fit.

The motion was brought pursuant to Order 33 Rules 12 – 17 of Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules Cap 134, LFN, 1990. The appellant reacted to the motion by filing a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 24th day of May, 1999 wherein it objected to the hearing of the respondents motion on the grounds that –

1) The said application now before this Honourable Court is incompetent, null and void ab initio

2) The said application is an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court

3) This Court lacks Jurisdiction to entertain same.

Further grounds of the said preliminary objection are adumbrated hereunder as follows –

(a) The action based on the application referred to which is the subject matter has not been initiated by due process of law.

(b) That the Honourable Court having delivered its final Judgment in this matter has no jurisdiction to entertain this application.

(c) That the applicants lack the necessary locus to institute this present application or at all.