CASE TITLE: GENERAL HYDROCARBONS LTD v. FBN LTD & ORS (2026) LPELR-84454(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 3RD JULY, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: JURISDICTION
LEAD JUDGMENT: EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, delivered on the 11th of September, 2025 in Appeal No. CA/PH/292/2025, and which allowed the appeal of the respondents and set aside the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt delivered on the 25th of March, 2025 in Suit No. FHC/PH/CS/02/2025.
The dispute arose out of an MOU between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent where both parties agreed for the 1st Respondent to fund the exploration of crude oil by the Appellant pursuant to an Oil Mining License. Part of the agreement was for the Appellant to domicile the proceeds of sale in an account with the 1st Respondent. Due to a failure of the 1st Respondent to grant fund to the Appellant as and when requested, the Appellant instituted arbitral proceedings against the 1st Respondent as well as proceedings before the Federal High Court seeking reliefs to restrain the 1st Respondent from recovering a previous loan facility and stopping the Appellant from seeking alternative funding. The Court granted the some of the reliefs.
The 1st Respondent also instituted an action before the trial Court for the Appellant’s failure to domicile proceeds of sale of the crude oil with the 1st Respondent. The 1st Respondent also filed an application ex parte to arrest, attach and put a lien on the entire cargo of crude oil on board the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel Tamara Tokoni which was granted by the trial Court.
The Appellant and 2nd to 4th respondents applied for an order setting aside and vacating the orders of the trial Court, they also filed a notice of preliminary objection and an application to set aside the arrest order on ground of effluxion of time. The trial Court in a composite ruling on 25-3-2025, dismissed the claim of the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) for being an abuse of process and for lack of merit, declined jurisdiction, set aside and vacated the arrest and detention order.
Dissatisfied, the 1st Respondent approached the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal. Dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court, suo motu, raised and considered the issue of the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the matter.
DECISION/HELD:
The Court allowed the appeal.
RATIOS:
- APPEAL – APPEAL AS OF RIGHT: When an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court will lie as of right
- COURT – RAISING ISSUE(S) SUO MOTU: Whether a Court can raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu and determine it without hearing parties
- COURT – JURISDICTION: Effect of a court hearing a matter where it has no jurisdiction
- JURISDICTION – ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION: Whether a claim for breach of contract to pay proceeds of sale of produced crude oil into a designated account and recovery of the diverted proceeds is a maritime matter which falls under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court where the goods are stored on a vessel on the sea
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
