News
Appeal Court to hear Agip’s suit against Malabu, others April 9
A three-member panel of justices, headed by Justice Okon Abang, adjourned the case after lawyer to the appellant (Agip), Inyene Robert, moved a motion to regularise their processes and was granted by the court.
Robert told the court that though their notice of appeal was filed within time, the record of appeal was not transmitted within time.
The lawyer then said a motion for extension of time to bring the record of appeal had been filed.
She equally filed a motion dated Nov. 22 for the appellant’s brief to be deemed as properly filed.
Justice Abang also granted it after it was not opposed by counsel to the 1st respondent (Malabu), Dr Reuben Atabo, SAN.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the appeal stemmed from a Dec. 22, 2020 judgment delivered by Justice Binta Nyako of a Federal High Court in Abuja in suit number: FHC/ABJ/CS/201/2017 in favour of Malabu.
Malabu had sued the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and seven others, including Nigerian Agip Exploration Ltd.
In the ruling, Justice Nyako struck out the appellant (Agip)’s preliminary objection dated April 21, 2017.
Dissatisfied with the decision, Agip filed the appeal, seeking an order setting aside the lower court ruling.
The appellant sued Malabu, FGN, Minister of Petroleum Resources, Shell Nigeria Ultra-Deep Ltd, Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company Ltd and Chief Dan Etete as 1st to 6th respondents respectively.
Giving four grounds of argument, Agip said the lower court failed to resolve the issues submitted to it, amounting to a breach of the appellant’s constitutional right to fair hearing and occasioned a miscarriage of justice on the appellant;
It also argued that the lower court erred when it failed to strike out the suit for being statute barred by virtue of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA) Cap P41 LFN 2004, among other grounds.
However, in its brief of arguments to counter the appellant’s submissions filed by a team of lawyers led by J.A. Achimugu, Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd prayed the appellate court to dismiss the appeal in its entirety and affirm the decision of the lower court.
On Agip’s argument that it was not given a fair hearing by the lower court, Malabu submitted that the appellant was speaking with two sides of its mouth.
“I most humbly urge my Lords to hold that to appeal against a decision on issues and then turn around to complain that the court failed to render a determination on those same issues amounts to approbating and reprobating at the same time as both are not consistent.
“| urge my lords to refuse the appellant’s argument on the point that the court did not render a decision on the issues of the action being statute barred and abuse of court process.
“I humbly draw my Lords attention to the indisputable fact that the defendants at the trial filed their respective notices of preliminary objection which were all heard together and determined in a composite ruling.
It argued that there was no denial of fair hearing as alleged by the appellant as all the judicial decisions cited and relied upon by the appellant on denial of fair hearing were inapplicable to the case.
“I urge my lords, with respect, not to be guided thereby in reaching a determination on this appeal,” the 1st respondent said.
On the argument that the suit was statute barred and the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, the 1st respondent submitted that “in determining whether an action is statute barred, recourse must be made to the originating process to ascertain the nature of claim and when the cause of action arose.”
It said it was not in dispute that the suit was commenced outside the three months’ limitation period provided for by Section 2{a) of POPA.
“However, it is very humbly submitted that the three months’ limitation period does not operate as an absolute bar which admits of no exceptions to that general rule.
“Section 2(a) of POPA, does not offer an absolute blanket shield to public officers for the perpetuation of illegalities and injustices and therefore admits of judicially recognised circumstances when that limitation period becomes inapplicable to protect the public officer,” it said.
Malabu further urged the Appeal Court to hold that public officers are not protected by Section 2(a) of POPA where the case involved is in respect of breach of contract, where the case involves recovery of land or oil fields, among others, citing previous cases to back the argument.
It would be recalled that Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd was granted OPL 245 on April 29, 1998. The said licence was revoked in 2001 and the company filed an action challenging the said revocation.
The suit was settled out of court leading to the re-grant of the OPL 245 to Malabu on July 2, 2010.
While Malabu’s licence to OPL 245 was valid and subsisting, the FRN and petroleum minister (2nd and 3rd respondents) were alleged to have entered into a “Block 245 Resolution Agreement” on April 29, 2011 to grant the same licence to Agip (appellant), the 4th and 5th respondents.(NAN)
The Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision that recognised Julius Abure as the National Chairman of the Labour Party (LP). In a decisive ruling, a five-member panel declared that the Court of Appeal lacked the legal authority to determine the party’s leadership matters.
In a unanimous verdict, the highest court in the land stated that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction over the matter. The panel observed that since the case revolved around the internal leadership structure of the Labour Party, it fell outside the jurisdiction of the courts.
The ruling reinforced the long-standing principle that leadership disputes within political parties should be resolved internally, rather than through judicial intervention.
The Supreme Court stressed that leadership struggles within political parties are purely internal matters. According to legal principles, courts should not interfere in such issues, as they fall under the party’s constitution and governance framework. By upholding this legal doctrine, the apex court reaffirmed that political parties must settle their leadership crises independently.
The Supreme Court upheld the appeal lodged by Senator Nenadi Usman and a fellow appellant, ruling that their claims were valid. Their appeal challenged the earlier judgment, arguing that it was flawed due to jurisdictional overreach. After thorough legal scrutiny, the Supreme Court found merit in their argument and ruled in their favour.
The legal battle also involved a cross-appeal filed by supporters of Julius Abure, who sought to challenge the decision against their leader. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this cross-appeal, declaring it unsubstantiated and lacking merit. The ruling effectively ended the legal contest over the Labour Party’s chairmanship, cementing the judiciary’s stance on non-interference in party leadership disputes.
Bitcoin experienced sharp fluctuations following President Donald Trump’s April 2 tariff announcement, initially surging to $88,000 before dropping to $82,000.
By April 3, it stabilized around $83,000, with the broader crypto market down over 4%. Major altcoins like Ethereum and Solana also declined over 6%, hitting multi-month lows.
Analysts see the tariff news as reducing market uncertainty, potentially attracting institutional investors.
Despite higher-than-expected rates, experts believe the clarity could help Bitcoin regain momentum toward $90,000. Bitcoin ETFs, led by BlackRock, recorded $218 million in inflows on April 2, reversing prior outflows.
Kraken’s Thomas Perfumo challenged the idea that institutional interest stabilizes crypto, emphasizing that volatility signals demand for a scarce asset.
Some analysts viewed the sell-off as an overreaction to trade policy concerns, highlighting Bitcoin’s resilience as a store of value.
With ETFs showing strong demand, Bitcoin’s price may stabilize and rise, though market participants remain cautious, monitoring trade policies and economic conditions.
Violent clashes between pastoralist groups and settled farming communities have long been a challenge in South Sudan.
However, the recent outbreak of violence in the northern Ruweng Administrative Area has further heightened concerns over the nation’s fragile peace. At least 30 people lost their lives after an armed youth group launched a brutal attack on a northern South Sudanese town, according to local officials.
The incident, linked to an escalating cattle raid, saw the town briefly fall under the control of the attackers before security forces regained control.
The violence began when a group of armed youth stole lambs earlier in the week. Security forces quickly intervened, forcing the raiders to retreat. However, instead of dispersing, the group reorganised and launched a more aggressive attack on Abiemnom the following day.
Local Minister of Information, Simon Chol Mialith, confirmed that despite resistance from local youth and security personnel, the town was overrun by the Mayom armed youth. The attack led to significant casualties and destruction before security forces were able to reclaim the town.
On Wednesday, the South Sudan People’s Defence Force (SSPDF) successfully pushed the attackers out, restoring a semblance of calm. However, the scale of the destruction was already severe, with over 40 individuals injured in addition to the fatalities.
Although reports suggest that some of the deceased were members of the armed groups, official confirmation remains pending.
The attack comes at a time of growing instability in South Sudan, with tensions between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and First Vice President Riek Machar intensifying. This political rivalry threatens to unravel the delicate 2018 peace agreement that ended the nation’s five-year civil war.
Since gaining independence in 2011, South Sudan has struggled with continuous unrest. Despite its vast oil resources, the country remains impoverished, with conflicts like these exacerbating economic and social difficulties.