Origin Oil & Gas Ltd. & Anor. v. NEPAL Oil & Gas Services Ltd. & 4Ors.

300

In Stock

Facts:

The 1st respondent entered into a contract with the appellants for joint importation
of four million litres of Automative Gas Oil (AGO) and another One Million Five
Hundred Thousand litres of AGO which upon arrival was stored in the 3rd respondent’s
tank farm. The 2nd respondent is an agency of the Federal Government responsible
for maritime administration. The 4th and 5th respondents are the parties’ bankers
for the purpose of the transaction. A dispute arose between the parties and the 1st
respondent became apprehensive. Consequently, the 1st respondent filed a suit
against the appellants at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division. The 1st respondent
also applied for interim and interlocutory injunctions against the appellants and
the 2nd to 5th respondents in order to preserve the AGO subject matter of the
agreement. The 1st respondent by its application sought a declaration that by
virtue of the Act establishing the 2nd respondent, it was not entitled to approve or
facilitate the release of the AGO stored in the tank farm of the 3rd respondent to
the appellants.
The trial court granted the interim injunction against the appellants but refused to
vacate same after hearing the motion on notice and application for discharge. The
appellants were dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court and consequently filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. The appellants alleged
that the 1st respondent concealed crucial information which should have aided the
court in discharging the interim injunction. The 1st respondent responded to the
appeal by filing its brief and incorporated a preliminary objection challenging some
of the grounds of appeal as being incompetent.
One of the issues for determination is whether the learned trial judge properly
considered the case the appellants presented before coming to his decisions,
particularly when the court held that the allegation of self-induced urgency and
fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment of facts had not been established
by the appellants.

My Cart (5 items)
Need Help? Chat with us