Facts:

It is the case of the Claimant that the 1st and 2nd Defendants retained the professional expertise of the Claimant for restructuring of certain complex loan facilities in the sum of Three Hundred and Eighty Five Million US Dollars (USD 385 Million) granted by a syndicate of local and international financial institutions to the 1st Defendant, and that the scope of services to be provided by the Claimant is contained in the based on the Claimant’s performance under the initial Mandate, the 1st and 2nd Defendants decided to expand the Claimant’s scope of services by activating the change order process contained in the initial mandate, that on the 23rd day of November, 2018, the Claimant and the 1st and 2nd Defendants entered into a Change Order letter Agreement where the Claimant was to perform the additional services, including leading the swap negotiations amongst the 1st Defendant, Savannah and Frontier Oil Limited, with the 2nd Defendant playing the role of facility agent. It is further the Claimant’s case that based on the Change Order, the Claimant and the 1st Defendant with the involvement of Savannah Petroleum agreed on the fee due to the Claimant in the sum of USD1 Million plus value added tax of 5% totaling a sum of USD1,050,000.00, and that the Claimant’s services had essentially transformed the operations of the 1st Defendant, and the 1st Defendant has failed to pay the professional fees to the Claimant as agreed. It is further the Claimant’s case that the 1st Defendant is required in this case to pay all applicable taxes, including Value Added Tax (VAT) and withholding Tax to the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) on behalf of the Claimant, and that the Claimant accepts an unequivocal stipulation by the 1st Defendant to pay directly to the FIRS, the VAT due in the sum of Seventy Five Thousand United State Dollars (USD 75,000.00), subject to payment of the Claimant’s professional fees in the sum of USD1,000,000.00 to the Claimant, and that the 1st and 2nd Defendants and the Accugas Lenders were very happy with the stellar performance of the Claimant and stated as much in various contemporaneous written communications to the Claimant.

These assertions were opposed to by the 1st Defendant who stated that it was not satisfied with the Claimant’s performance and the dissatisfaction was communicated to the Claimant and that it was surprised to have received the Claimant’s invoice and cover letter when parties have not agreed yet on the exact fees payable.

At the hearing of the suit, parties’ counsel adopted their respective processes and oral submissions were made thereon.