THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA & ORS VS ZEBRA ENERGY LIMTED - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA & ORS VS ZEBRA ENERGY LIMTED

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA & ORS V. ZEBRA ENERGY LIMTED
June 18, 2025
NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY APPELLANT VS MR. B. EDEGBERO & ORS
June 18, 2025
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA & ORS V. ZEBRA ENERGY LIMTED
June 18, 2025
NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY APPELLANT VS MR. B. EDEGBERO & ORS
June 18, 2025
Show all

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA & ORS VS ZEBRA ENERGY LIMTED

Legalpedia Citation: (2002) Legalpedia (SC) 37818

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

Thu Dec 12, 2002

Suit Number: SC. 268/2001

CORAM


OLAJIDE ATAWURA – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC


PARTIES


THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ALHAJI RILWANU LUKMAN (THE PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER ON PETROLEUM AND ENERGY) DR. ABOKI ZHAWA (PERMANENT SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES) DR. W.F. DUBLIN GREEN (DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES) DR. CHRISTOPHER KOLADE (CHAIRMAN, PANEL OF REVIEW OF CONTRACTS, LICENCES AND APPOINTMENTS)ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION APPELLANTS


ZEBBRA ENERGY LIMTED RESPONDENTS


AREA(S) OF LAW



SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondent’s application for allocation of Offshore Oil Blocks was approved and was subsequently granted a grace period to complete balance payment for Signature Bonus and Reserved value. The allocation was revoked during the grace period.


HELD


The court held (Ejiwunmi JSC dissenting) that there was a binding contract in existence between the parties and the license could not be revoked prior to the expiration of the grace period already granted.


ISSUES


1. Does the trial court possess jurisdiction to entertain this suit in view of the Public Officer Protection Act Cap. 379. LFN 1990. 2. Was the Court of Appeal right in affirming the refusal to allow the appellant to use the counter affidavit and did this not amount to a violation of the appellants’ right to fair hearing? 3. Was there an existing contract between the parties as at 8th July, 1999? 4. Was the Court of Appeal right in affirming the trial court’s holding that the provisions of the Petroleum Act Cap 350. LFN 1990 applied in the circumstance of this case? 5. Did the 6th appellant’s panel violate the principles of natural Justice and the rules of fair hearing in this matter? 6. Was the Court of Appeal right in affirming the judgment of the trial court, which granted reliefs either not sought or claimed or which were inappropriate in the circumstance?


RATIONES DECIDENDI


CASES CITED


Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd. V. Cooper (1941) A.C. 108|Errington v. Errington and Woods (1952) I All E.R. 149|Abbott v. Lance (1860) Legge 1283 NSWFC|Permanent Secretary Ministry of Works E.T.C. & Anor. v. Balogun (1975) N.S. C C. 292.|Nigerian Ports Authority v. Construction Generali Farsura Cogefar SPA and Anor. (1974) All NLR 945 at 955


STATUTES REFERRED TO


The Petroleum Act|


CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.