Oil fields dispute: Court orders Petroleum minister, others to maintain status quo

The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, ordered Mr Heineken Lokpobiri, Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), and others to maintain status quo pending the hearing and determination of a case involving four oil fields.

Justice Emeka Nwite gave the order after Mr Ambrose Unaeze, who appeared for the plaintiffs; Hi-Rev Oil Limited and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Ltd, moved the application to the effect.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the 2nd and 3rd defendants in the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2678/2025, are the Attorney-General of Federation (AGF) and Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC).

Justice Nwite had, on Dec. 22, 2025, ordered the minister, the AGF and NUPRC to show cause why the reliefs of the plaintiffs in their motion ex-parte should not be granted.

The judge made the order after Unaeze moved the motion dated and filed on Dec. 11.

The oil and gas companies had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants or whomsoever is acting on their behest from selling, assigning or allocating the Yorla South (Petroleum Prospecting Licence (PPL) 2A32 – OML 11) located in Rivers.

The order is to also restrain the defendants from allocating Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 – OML 25) located in Bayelsa; Diebu Creek East (OML 32) also located in Bayelsa and Idiok (PPL 2A41 – OML 67) located in Akwa Ibom, “same being direct replacements for Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, previously allocated to the plaintiff but was later withdrawn by the defendants, pending the hearing of the interlocutory application in this suit.”

Giving four grounds why their application should be granted, the lawyer said the companies were previously allocated the Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, but were unreasonably withdrawn by the Federal Government.

He said parties had a settlement agreement for the replacement of the Utapate Oil Field, which was accepted or adopted and it became consent judgement.

Unaeze stated that the firms had taken substantial steps and offered consideration in respect of the grant of the licence to operate OPL and licence to establish a petroleum refinery.

He argued that the companies’ legal right is being threatened by the defendants, pursuant to the threat to sell or allocate the oil fields at Yorla South, Akiapiri, Diebu Creek East, and Idiok to third parties via the defendants’ offer to the public for round bid, hence, the need for the interim order.

Although the judge did not grant the order, he, however, ordered the defendants to appear on Jan. 5 (today).

When the matter was called on Monday, Unaeze informed the court that an order was made for the defendants to show cause why their relief should not be granted.

The lawyer said the 1st and 3rd defendants (minister and NUPRC) just served on him their memorandum of conditional appearance, counter affidavit and preliminary objection in court and that he would need time to respond.

Unaeze, however, applied that the defendants, who were duly represented in court by their lawyers, should give an undertaking not to take any action that might affect the subject matter pending the hearing and determination of the case.

“This is because of the nature of the case and the risk the res (subject matter) may face before the next adjourned date,” he said.

Speaking, Oyinlade Koleoso, who appeared for the 2nd defendant (AGF), said they filed a counter affidavit and a preliminary objection, though they were yet to serve same.

When the judge asked him if he had filed affidavit to show cause, Koleose said he believed that the processes he had filed would take care of that.

The lawyer told the court that based on Unaeze’s application, their submission was that the AGF was not in the position to allocate oil blocks.

The 3rd defendant (NUPRC)’s lawyer, J. A. Olugbade, disagreed with Unaeze’s application.

He said he opposed the plaintiffs lawyer’s prayer since he had already filed a counter affidavit and a preliminary objection.

B. J. Tabaya, counsel for the 1st defendant (minister), said he did not have the instruction of his client to make such undertaking sought by Unaeze.

“But when a case is in court, what are you supposed to do?” the judge asked Tabaya.

“Party will maintain status quo,” the lawyer responded.

“So go and tell your client that as far as this matter is before the court, parties should maintain status quo,” the judge said.

Delivering the ruling, Justice Nwite, who granted Unaeze’s application, ordered the parties to maintain status quo pending the hearing and determination of the matter.

The judge then adjourned the matter until Jan. 26 for hearing.