The Federal Government has urged the Court of Appeal to reverse the April 18 judgment delivered by the Federal High Court in Abuja which ordered, among others, the reinstatement of Ifeanyi Ararume as the Chairman of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL).
The government also faulted the N5 billion damages awarded in Ararume’s favour in the judgment delivered by Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court in Abuja, arguing that he (Ararume) did not establish his entitlement to such a huge compensation.
The government’s position is contained in an eight-ground notice of appeal filed in the name of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by a team of lawyers from the Federal Ministry of Justice, led by Tijani Gazali (SAN).
Ararume had sued the Federal Government on September 12, last year, to challenge the then President Muhammadu Buhari’s reversal of his appointment as the Non-Executive Chairman of the NNPCL via a letter dated January 17, 2022.
In his April 18, 2023 judgment, Justice Ekwo faulted Buhari’s action, ordered Ararume’s reinstatement and awarded N5 billion damages in his favour.
The Federal Government, in its Notice of Appeal, challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to have heard the case and queried the competence of the suit, arguing that it was statute barred.
In its first ground of appeal, the Federal Government faulted the trial judge for assuming jurisdiction over the case.
It argued that under the provision of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act and Section 254(c) of the Constitution, the NIC has the exclusive jurisdiction in civil matters bordering on labour and employment.
“The provision of Section 254(c) of the Constitution is made notwithstanding anything to the contrary provided in Section 251 of the Constitution (which dictates the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court).
“The provision of Section 254(c) of the Constitution takes precedence over Section 251 of the Constitution on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The office of the Non-Executive Chairman was not contemplated under the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020.
“Hence, CAMA does not regulate the appointment and withdrawal from office, to vest the determination of such question on the Federal High Court. The Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter,” the Federal Government said in its Notice of Appeal.
On Ground Two, the appellants faulted the trial judge for assuming jurisdiction over the suit, “which was statute barred, having been filed more than three months after the accrual of the cause of action and in breach of Section of 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act”.
It noted that while Ararume’s cause of action arose from the January 17, 2022 letter from the President, who withdrew his appointment, he filed his suit on September 12, 2022 “more than three months after the withdrawal of his appointment”.
On Ground Three, the appellant faulted the trial judge for interpreting the general provisions of Section 288 of CAMA “and placed it above the specific provisions of Section 63(3) of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021 in relation to the withdrawal of the appointment of the 1st respondent (Ararume) by the appellant”.
It argued that the provision of Section 288 of CAMA “is silent on the withdrawal of appointment of a Non-Executive Chairman of the second respondent company (NNPCL)”.
The government added: “The provisions of Section 288 of CAMA cannot be rightly applied in interpreting the powers of the President listed in Section 63(3) of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021.
“The office of a Non-Executive Chairman is only known to the Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, which made provisions for the appointment and withdrawal of a person to that office.
“The Petroleum Industry Act, 2021, is the specific legislation on the subject of the governance of the Nigerian petroleum industry, hence it is more relevant than the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 on the subject.
“Section 63(3) of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021 does not provide for giving an officer prior notification before removal from office.”
On the issue of damages, the appellant faulted the trial judge for awarding N5 billion in favour of Ararume over his alleged wrongful removal from office.
It argued that damages are awarded when premised on established actionable wrong or injury, contending that the award of N5 billion “is unsupported by the weight of evidence adduced before the trial court by the first respondent”.
The Federal Government also said: “The appellant withdrew the letter of appointment of the first respondent shortly after it was issued. The first respondent did not place any document before the court to show what he would have been entitled to, had his appointment not been withdrawn by the appellant.
“There was no basis for the quantum of damages awarded to the first respondent.”