Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation V. Samfadek & Sons Limited (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C.

This application, argued on 28th November, 2017 was filed on 6th April, 2017. It prays for two principal reliefs, to wit

1. An order for extension of time within which the Appellant/Applicant may appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division in the appeal No. CA/L/214/93 delivered on the 27th May, 1996.
2. An order granting leave to the Appellant/Applicant to rely on the Records of Appeal and the Amended Appellant’s Brief of Argument filed in this appeal.

In the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal in the appeal No. CA/L/214/98 on 27th May, 1996 (per Uwaifo, Ayoola & Pats-Acholonu, JJCA as they were then) more than – 21 years before this instant application, a consequential order was made remitting the case No.ID/1532/89 to the trial judge, Oduneye, J. of Lagos State High Court-

For compensation due the 2nd Respondent (Samfadek and Sons Ltd) under the (Oil Piplines) Act to be properly addressed.

1

The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence for the purpose of assessment of such compensation.

This was not appealed, at least then. This is the order the Appellant/Applicant now, by this application, wants to appeal within another appeal (the instant appeal SC.108/2005) before this Court against the subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeal Nos. CA/L/178/98 & CA/L/214/99. I will come anon to this.

In obedience to the order of remittance made on 27th May, 1996, in the appeal No. CA/L/214/93, Oduneye J. resumed the proceedings in the suit No ID/1532/89, with all the parties, including the Appellant/Applicant, participating in the proceedings to determine the compensation due the 2nd Respondent” (Sampadek & Sons Ltd) under the Oil Pipeline Act. Final judgment on that very narrow question was delivered by Oduneye, J., on 20th November, 1998. The Appellant/Applicant herein, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) was ordered to pay N24,000,000:00 as compensation under the Oil Pipelines Act.

2

Before the final judgment, and in the proceedings of the trial Court before Oduneye J., following the order of the Court of Appeal on 27th May, 1996, the Appellant/Applicant herein, brought an application dated 30th may, 1997 praying that the trial Court should decline the re-hearing of the matter. It was contended in the application, ostensibly inviting the trial Court not to submit to the superior order of the Court of Appeal, that-

9. In the interest of Justice the matter should not be re-tried by the honourable Court.
10. This Hon. Court has already heard too much on the merit of this case
11. This Court has already made its decision on the issue raised in the pleadings and evidence
12. In the interest of justice this Hon. Court should decline jurisdiction to re-hear the case.

The learned trial Judge, Oduneye, J., in his ruling delivered on 13th June, 1997 dismissed the application. He granted the Appellant/Applicant (herein after called NNPC) leave on 25th July, 1997, to appeal his decision of 13th June, 1997 – 42 days after the Ruling. It appears that the Notice of Appeal filed on 15th August, 1997, at pages 56 & 57 of the Record,

3

directed at “the ruling of Hon. Justice J. A. Oduneye J., dated 13th June, 1997 and 25th July, 1997″, was purportediy filed in pursuance of the leave granted on 25th July, 1997 by Oduneye, J. That Notice of Appeal appears to be the foundation of the appeal No. CA/L/178/98.

Meanwhile, NNPC did not appeal the order of the Court of Appeal made on 27th May, 1996 in the appeal No. CA/L/214/93 remitting the case back to Oduneye J., to hear the parties and determine the proper compensation due to SAMFADEK & SONS LTD, the Respondent, under the Oil Pipelines Act. In compliance with that order, Oduneye, J, in the suit No. ID/1532/89 proceeded in the proceedings and delivered his final decision on 20th November, 1998. The NNPC appeal against the final decision of Oduneye J., delivered on 20th November, 1998 is the appeal No. CA/L/214/99. These appeal and the earlier interlocutory appeal No. CA/L/178/98 were heard together.