The Nation Newspaper

Tag: dispute

  • 18-year Mobil, employees’ dispute nears resolution

    18-year Mobil, employees’ dispute nears resolution

    The Supreme Court has reserved judgment for April 20 in the case of 860 Nigerians employed by Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited. What will be their fate? ERIC IKHILAE reviews the case.

    About eight years after Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court against the May 21, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar, ordering it to accept responsibility for the 860 Nigerians it employed as security guards, the apex court has scheduled judgment for April 20 this year.

    The judgment will put to rest the about 18-year-old dispute on the status of the 860 Nigerians and the pains and misery to which they have been subjected since the company disengaged them under questionable circumstances when the dispute began.

    Court documents revealed that the Nigerian workers were variously employed in early 1990s by Mobil in its security unit. But for unknown reasons, the company chose to refer to them as: “SPY Police of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited,” a decision that later created confusion over the actual status of the workers.

    On January 23, this year, a panel of five Justices of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Bode Rhodes-Vivour, chose April 20, 2018 for judgment after parties had argued and adopted their written briefs of argument in respect to the appeal marked: SC/33/2010 lodged by Mobil.

    Named as 1st to 15th respondents in the appeal (representing the 860 Nigerians) are Okon Johnson; Nkereuwem Akpe; Nsitighe Ikpam; Calistus Nwafor; Emmanuel Nwokezi; Eric Teenwi; Affiong Etim; Amangi Ala; Joseph Bamishaye; Godwin Tombra; Charles Okon; Dada Rotimi; Raji Lateef; Taiwo Laidi and Opubo Sukubo.

    Other respondents, listed as 16th, 17th and 18th, are the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Commissioner of Police, Akwa Ibom State and the Nigeria Police Council (NPC).

    Kayode Sofola, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN),  adopted the appellant’s briefs on January 23 this year, urged the court to allow his client’s appeal and set aside the May 21 judgment of the Court of Appeal, Calabar, which held among others, that it was wrong for Mobil to seek to evade its responsibility in relation to the 860 Nigerians, by claiming that they were employees of the Nigeria Police Force.

    Sofola insisted that the Nigerians, including the 15 listed in court papers (as representing the others) were supernumerary police officers, because they were administered the oath of allegiance, dressed in police uniform, availed all other police paraphernalia and trained by the police.

    He noted that the Nigerian workers described themselves, in one of their affidavits, as supernumerary police officers, which amounted to an admission that they were not employees of his client.

    Sofola also faulted the mode of commencing the case at the trial court, which he said, led to the denial of fair hearing to his client.

    In his notice of objection, Sofola argued that since the facts in the case were hotly disputed, the suit ought not to have been commenced by way of originating summons. He said the mode of commencing the suit denied his client the opportunity to lead oral evidence to support its claims.

    In a contrary argument, lawyer to the 1st to 15 respondents, Femi Falana (SAN) faulted Sofola’s claim that his clients were denied fair hearing.   He argued that there was nowhere in the appellant’s brief any evidence to show that its right to fair hearing was violated.

    Falana noted that the appellant did not, at the Court of Appeal, challenged the mode with which the suit was commenced at the trial court and could not now do so at the apex court. He added that the argument on fair hearing and the case cited by Sofola in support were irrelevant to the case.

    On the status of his clients, Falana argued that Sofola failed to provide any evidence that Mobil complied with the laid down procedure for the appointment of SPY policemen by the Nigeria Police Force.

    He noted that Mobil admitted that it conducted examination for the employment of the applicants at the trail court (the Nigerian workers), issued them with employment letters, sent them to the police for training and continued to pay their salaries through the police.

    Falana said: “It was Mobil Producing the conducted the examination for those they wanted to employment as security guards. Those, who passed, were issued employment letters by the company, but later sent to Police College, Calabar.

    As against the claim by Sofola that the Nigerians earn their salaries from the Nigeria Police Force, Falana argued that the salaries of the Nigerians were paid by  Mobil, but through the police.

    He added: “When this question arose, as to the status of the 1 – 15 respondents, the IGP clarified the issue that the responsibilities of Police regarding the SPY is mainly on training, upon the request of the employer.

    “On the face of the letter of employment, salaries and allowances paid by the appellant (Mobil) through the police, the findings of the lower court (Court of Appeal, Calabar) cannot be faulted.

    “The procedure for the application for SPY requires that an application be sent to the IGP, who will send it to the President for approval. That requirement was not complied with,” Falana said.

    He urged the court to reject the appeal and uphold the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, Calabar on the issue.

    Lawyer to the IGP, Commissioner of Police, Akaw Ibom and NPC, Sebastian Ozoani did not file any process in response to the appeal, but did so in respect of the appeal by his clients, marked: SC/378/2010.

    Ozoani, while arguing his client’s appeal, faulted the contract between Mobil and the Nigerians. He, also faulted the letter of employment issued to them by Mobil.

    He said the letters did not contain the necessary elements required globally to qualify them (the employment letters) as valid ones.

    He urged the court to hold that the workers (listed as 2nd to 16th defendants in the second appeal) are employees of the Nigeria Police.

    In a counter argument, Falana argued that the appeal by the police lacked merit and was intended to waste the court’s time.

    Falana noted that the IGP, Commissioner of Police, Akwa Ibom State and NPC did not file any process when the case was before the Court of Appeal.

    He contended that “the case is about private contract between the 1st res and the 2nd to 16 res. It has nothing to do with the police. The IGP has said the police has no business with them beyond training them”.

    In 2000 a dispute arose about the status of the security guards, with Mobil claiming to have transferred their employment to the Nigeria Police Force (NPF). Mobil claimed it engaged them as SPY police personnel, and not actual staff; a claim the affected workers disputed, with some of them refusing to be transferred out of their stations.

    They alleged being victimised, with some sacked unceremoniously for insisting on right to being entitled to be treated as other employees of Mobil. They alleged that, aside from being subjected to harsh working condition, they were compelled to sign a document identified as “Mobil Producing Nigeria status agreement for supernumerary police service condition agreement.”

    The workers said although some of them succumbed and endorsed the documents, others stood their ground, and later sought the protection of the court by filing a suit at the Federal High Court, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, marked: FHC/UY/CS/2004.

    In a judgment on January 24, 2006, Justice Gladys Olotu ruled in favour of Mobil. The judge said, among others, that although the Mobil did not fully comply with the requirement under the Police Act, in recruiting SPY policemen, it could be assumed that it complied, having substantially complied with some of the regulations

    The Nigerian workers appealed Justice Olotu’s decision at the Court of Appeal, Calabar, Cross River State, which rendered its judgment  on May 21, 2009 a nullity.

    A three-man panel of the Appeal Court, in its May 21, 2009 judgment, held among others, that the Nigerian workers were Mobil’s employees and ordered it to assume its responsibilities as they relate to the Nigerian workers. The panel comprised Justice Kumai Akaahs, Jean Omokri and Theresa Orji-Abadua.

    Justice Orji-Abadua observed, in the lead judgment, that: “It is clear in exhibits D and E (Mobil’s letters to the Police, requesting training for its security recruit) that the 1st respondent (Mobil) was referring to their own security men as Supernumerary Police recruit, and it wanted them to be trained by the Nigeria Police in respect of which it made application to the Commissioner of Police in charge of Cross River State.

    “In exhibit F (a November 1, 1996 letter by Mobil’s Security Advisor, B. O. B. Duke), the 1st respondent requested the Commissioner of Police to recruit its security personnel into the Police Supernumerary outfit.

    “It is clear therein that as at the date exhibit F was written, the appellants (the affected staff) had not, according to the 1st respondent, been recruited as supernumerary police officers.

    “It is also clear, in exhibit C2, that it is the 1st respondent, in the figment of its imagination and its hallucinating state, that offered the appellants employment in its security unit and described them as SPY Constables.

    “It is clear as crystal, in the processes filed before the lower court (Federal High Court) and the documents exhibited, that the 1st respondent and officers of the 2nd to 4th respondents (IGP, Akwa Ibom State Police Commissioner and Nigeria Police Council) were oblivious of the requirement of the law or its stipulations in so far as the requirements, employment/appointment of supernumerary police officers were concerned.

    “Undoubtedly, the hood does not make a monk. The fact that the appellants were described as SPY Police Mobil Producing Nigeria and were adorned with Nigeria Police uniforms and other paraphernalia cannot make them Nigeria policemen.

    “As a matter of fact, the appellants were made to believe they were being recruited into the Security Unit of the 1st respondent as the SPY police of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited, but not as Nigeria Supernumerary Police officers,” she said.

    Justice Orji-Abadua further held that it was immaterial whether or not the appellants thought they were Nigeria Police SPY, and that what confers the status of a police on a person is not the wearing of uniform or being called a police, but the process of the person’s recruitment in accordance with the law creating his employment.

    She noted that: “Section 18(1) & (2) of the Police Act expressly stated the way and manner a supernumerary police officer will be appointed upon the application of the person desiring to take advantage of the services of police for protection of his property. It is clear that any step short of the ones prescribed by the Police Act will be null and void.

    “The appellants were not employed by the Nigeria Police Force and then appointed as Supernumerary Police Officers by the Police Service Commission on the directive of the Inspector general of Police for the protection of the 1st respondent’s property as envisaged by Section 18(1) & (2) of the Police Act.

    “They were and still are the employees of the 1st respondent since there was no affidavit evidence indicating that the appellants’ employment had been determined by the 1st respondent,” Justice Orji-Abadua said.

    It is this Court of Appeal’s decision that Mobil appealed to the Supreme Court and on which judgment has been reserved for April 20, this year.

  • Osun chieftaincy dispute: Supreme Court’s verdict on January 12

    The Supreme Court has fixed January 12 for judgment in the over eight-year chieftaincy dispute in Osun State on the appointment of a successor to the late Olufon of Ifon-Osun, Oba Olatoye Ilufoye Omotoyinbo II.

    The court chose the date last Tuesday after parties adopted their written briefs of argument in an filed against the March 3, 2011 judgment of the Akure Division of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the appeal by Alhaji Moroof Oladimeji Akintola.

    The appeal was filed on August 8, 2011 by Alhaji Maroof Adekunle Magbagbeola, Osun State governor, the Commissioner of Justice and Attorney General and nine others.

    According to court documents, the dispute arose from the state government’s handling of Magbagbeola’s appointment to succeed Oba Omotoyinbo II, who joined his ancestors on August 20, 2007.

    Akintola, who was dissatisfied with the process leading to the appointment of Magbagbeola, sued at the state High Court and prayed the court to, among others, void Magbagbeola’s appointment.

    In his deposition, Akintola averred that in line with Ifon-Osun’s tradition, the Olumoyero Ruling House, whose turn it was to produce a successor to the throne, nominated him (Akintola) and Magbagbeola for the kingmakers to perform the customary and traditional rites of determining who among the two nominees should succeed the deceased king.

    He said the head of Olumoyero family, Prince Lasisi Oyedokun, was, in line with tradition, required to present both nominees to the kingmakers to perform the customary rites of determining the actual successor.

    Akintola added that while they were waiting for the process to start, the governor and Attorney-General of the state allegedly appointed some individuals they named warrant kingmakers, who eventually appointed Magbagbeola to the throne, a choice the governor and Attorney-General later endorsed.

    He prayed the court to, among others, void Magbagbeola’s appointment and direct the parties to comply with the traditional procedure in the state’s Chiefs Law.

    Magbagbeola, the governor, the AG and nine others objected to the suit.

    They insisted, among others, that Akintola’s suit was wrongly initiated because he allegedly failed to exhaust the internal stipulations in Section 20 (1) and (2) of the Chief’s Law Cap 25 of Osun State 2003.

    They said the state government’s appointment of “warrant kingmakers” to conclude the nomination of a successor to the throne was informed by the traditional kingmakers’ inability to form a quorum.

    In a March 30, 2009 ruling, the state High Court upheld the preliminary objection filed by Magbagbeola and others and dismissed Akintola’s suit on the ground that it was not properly initiated.

    Akintola appealed to the Court of Appeal in Akure.

    In a March 3, 2011 judgment, the court allowed the appeal and ordered that the case be sent back to the High Court.

    It reassigned the matter to a new judge for it to be heard afresh, a decision Magbagbeola and others appealed against at the Supreme Court.

    In their appellants’ brief, Magbagbeola and others urged the Supreme Court to set aside the Appeal Court’s decision, which they said was arrived at without proper interpretation of Section 20 (a) and (b) of the Chief’s Law of Osun State, 2003.

    In his respondent’s brief, Akintola noted that the thrust of the appellants’ appeal was against a portion of the judgment, which states that the noncompliance with Section 20 (2) by a person aggrieved by the appointment of a chief is not fatal because the section does not provide a sanction.

    Akintola averred that he is not required to exhaust the administrative remedy provided by the law before suing in court.

    He said Section 20 (2) of the Chief’s Law was not applicable to his case.

  • Daniel denies dispute with George over PDP chairmanship

    Daniel denies dispute with George over PDP chairmanship

    FORMER  Ogun State Governor Gbenga Daniel has denied existence of any disagreement between him and Chief Bode George over the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) chairmanship position as alleged by a section of the media.

    His media aide Ayomide Giwa, in a statement yesterday, said while the media reports cited anonymous sources as the authority of the reported disagreement, “it is important to set the record straight lest the public and members of the PDP take them with any bit of seriousness”.

    The statement reads: “Otunba Gbenga Daniel has proven time and time again that he is a strict follower of the tenets of Yoruba culture and tradition, which places premium on respect to elders. Chief George is not only one of the founding fathers of the PDP but an elder statesman who has made tremendous contributions to the development of the party. Therefore, there is no way Otunba Daniel would have disrespected him let alone confront him openly. Report of confrontation with Chief Bode George in any way is only a figment of the author’s imagination and never took place.

    “The focus of the stakeholders across the Southwest presently is rebuilding the party and reconciling members and factions alike. Achieving a united and vibrant opposition with proper repositioning to offer better alternative to the people in 2019 is the mission at hand.

    “When the time comes, the post of the National Chairman of the PDP will be a collective decision of members of the party in accordance with the constitution of our great party.”

    The statement called on the public to disregard “this ‘sponsored’ report as the incidence cited does not reflect any reality in matters particular”.

  • Italian court intervenes in Bayelsa community’s,oil giant’s dispute

    Italian court intervenes in Bayelsa community’s,oil giant’s dispute

    Friends of the Earth Nigeria and Friends of the Earth Europe have teamed up with a Bayelsa State community, Ikebiri, to drag oil giant ENI before a court in in Milan, Italy, over the pollution of their environment, writes PRECIOUS DIKEWOHA.

    ‘It is frustrating to learn that AGIP accepts responsibility for the Spill but without liability to clean up and pay adequate compensation. The tactics of underestimating spills to reduce damage has been challenged by this historic court case’

    Ikebiri is a community in Bayelsa State. It is made up of several villages. Its main economic activities include palm-wine tapping, canoe carving, fishing, farming, animal trapping and traditional medical practices.

    Its story took a sad turn on April 5, 2010. No thanks to the bursting of an oil pipeline operated by oil giant ENI’s Nigerian operation, the Nigerian Agip Oil Company (NAOC). It burst 250 metres from a creek north of Ikebiri. The spill affected the creek, fishing ponds and trees essential to the local community. It badly damaged the livelihoods of the community.

    Six days after the spill, a joint inspection visit led by NAOC cited “equipment failure” as the cause of the spill.

    The oil giant operates seven wells and eight pipe lines with several flow lines in the area. The leak was closed, and the surrounding polluted area of bush was burnt without the consent of the community. This was a process far below international standard.

    The community approached NAOC/ENI for emergency relief materials and compensation. On April 5, the oil giant released N2 million to the community and on April 18, it added €10,034 for relief materials. As compensation, it offered N4.5 million, which was rejected by the community. The community wants N31.5 million.

    A resident, Emilia Matthew, said: “I am sick and we don’t know what to resort to when experiencing illness. Fishing, which has been our means of livelihood, is now threatened; it is no longer productive due to the river being polluted by oil spills. The fish in our fish ponds in the swamps/bush too have all been killed by crude oil. So, we have lost our fish ponds. The vegetables we plant within the community, some of which are medicinal and we use in treating ourselves are also affected by crude oil.”

    Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Executive Director Nigeria Dr. Godwin Uyi Ojo, at news conference on Tuesday in Lagos, said: “It took six days for NAOC to agree to a joint inspection visit where it was concluded that “equipment failure” caused the spill. NAOC operates seven wells and eight pipelines with several flow lines in the area of Ikebiri. You will be shocked to know that after that visit the leak was closed but the surrounding polluted area of bush was set ablaze in a state of the art clean up technology often deployed by AGIP and without the consent of the local community. No other clean-up has taken place since.

    “It is frustrating to learn that AGIP accepts responsibility for the Spill but without liability to clean up and pay adequate compensation. The tactics of underestimating spills to reduce damage has been challenged by this historic court case. Though NAOC claimed the polluted area is 9 hectares and an estimated 50 barrels of oil leaked, we know from chemical analysis that the polluted area is much wider. It is at least 17.6 hectares wide, while evidence of pollution has also been found by soil sample analysis 2km downstream from the spill site.”

    Ojo added: “The monumental hurdles and the challenges of access to justice on the way of community people includes lack of access to information, high costs of legal cases, sleeping on your rights which limits period of initiating a case, and the cumbersome nature of oil spill cases against transnational companies that could take a lifetime. These impediments on the way of local people to seek access to environmental justice persists hence this court case to serve as deterrent. In the Niger Delta, there are potentially over 1000 cases against oil companies arising from negligence and nuisance from their oil operations. In the case of Ikebiri, AGIP/ENI is considering as cleaned up a land that is still heavily polluted, and offering a paltry sum as compensation to externalise productions costs. The community has lived with this heart retching situation ever since.  Their plight is now the same with other communities of the Niger Delta that live with the impacts of continuous oil spills on their environment, health and livelihoods.

    “As mentioned last week when the case was instituted, the spill could have been managed and stopped from spreading to a huge expanse of the Ikebiri swampland but the nonchalant attitude of the ENI/NAOC created the current mess.”

    Friends of the Earth Europe and the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria are supporting the community’s court case against ENI.

    In the case against AGIP/ENI filed in Milan, Italy, on May 4, the plaintiffs are seeking the clean-up of their community and compensation for the pollution. The King of Ikebiri is the plaintiff, and the lawyers representing them are Luca Saltalamacchia with Chima Williams of ERA/FoE Nigeria.

    Ojo explained that “we feel this case should set the stage for others equally impacted by ENI’s operations to take their destinies in their hands and to provide deterrents to Agip/ENI and other oil companies.”

    He gave recent cases as:  Azuzuama, which happened on July 9, 2015 in which 14 persons were burnt beyond recognition along NAOC’s Tebidabe-Clough Creek pipeline, Etieama community in Nembe Local Government Area and Ayamabele/Kalaba community environment, in Okordia clan, Yenagoa, Bayelsa.

    The ERA boss went on: “This is an unprecedented case in Italy, and its success has been a product of 4 years of painstaking research and documentation and the patience of the Ikebiri people suffering this ordeal this past seven years.  We hope that this case will be successful being the first instance of an Italian company having to face justice in Italy for its actions in destroying the environment overseas. It will help end the impunity and offer hope to other communities that have suffered damages as a result of pollution from oil wells or pipelines operated by Agip/ENI or any other multinational firm operating in the Niger Delta and elsewhere.”

     

  • ‘Arbitration a better option in real estate dispute’

    ‘Arbitration a better option in real estate dispute’

    Nathan Searle is a partner in Hogan Lovells International Arbitration Group, who acts for multi-nationals and high-value international arbitrators in cross-border disputes. In an email chat with MUYIWA LUCAS, Searle speaks on the role of arbitration in the real estate sector. 

    What is the role of arbitration in real estate dispute resolution?

    As urbanisation increases and the size, value and complexity of real estate developments rise, the potential for disputes heightens. In particular, real estate developments are increasingly involving provision of key infrastructure such as power, water and roads. Real estate projects involve many parties including investors, lenders, construction firms, materials suppliers and the purchasers, who may be businesses or individuals.

    Arbitration is a means of resolving disputes in a fast, efficient, cost-effective and confidential manner.

    One key advantage of arbitration is parties can choose arbitrators with experience in the real estate sector. This means that the parties’ dispute will be determined by someone, who can bring to bear his expertise in understanding and deciding the matters in dispute.  This can lead to a more efficient process and be helpful, particularly regarding issues that are technical or relate to industry practice.

    Another advantage of arbitration is parties can determine, to a large extent, how they want the proceedings to be handled whereas court proceedings are conducted in accordance with court rules.  In the context of an ongoing real estate development project, it may be necessary for a dispute to be resolved quickly so that work on the project can continue. Arbitration enables the parties to agree to put in place procedures to ensure that an award is made quickly to prevent a dispute from derailing the project.

    Does Nigeria have trained personnel to handle arbitration?

    There are many leading arbitration lawyers in Nigeria. Many of these lawyers have experience of arbitrations in the oil and gas sector, where arbitration is the preferred means for resolving disputes.  There is a false perception that it is only used in resolving oil and gas disputes, this, however, is not the case, as arbitration is constantly evolving and is increasingly common in other sectors.

    The recent creation of the Association of Young Arbitrators (AYA) Nigeria, also shows that Nigeria is investing in promoting arbitration among young, up-and-coming lawyers. AYA is an organisation established by young Nigerian lawyers to facilitate mentoring, knowledge sharing and training of the next generation of arbitration lawyers in Nigeria. The Lagos Court of Arbitration has also offered arbitration training to Nigerian lawyers for a number of years.

    How can the concept of arbitration be related to real estate?

    When people talk about Arbitration, they are often referring to mediation.  Unlike in court or an arbitration, in mediation there is no final and binding judgment.  Instead, the mediator’s role is to seek to facilitate the parties reaching agreement on a final settlement.  The mediator’s role is to help show the parties how they can reach a win-win solution by helping them evaluate the strength and weaknesses of their cases to reach a fair and mutually acceptable outcome.  A key advantage of mediation is that it is faster and cheaper than litigation or arbitration.

    To what extent is the outcome of arbitration legally binding on other parties in real estate issues?

    Arbitration results in an award which the parties agree is final and binding, subject to any rights of appeal provided for by law.  Courts will usually enforce arbitration awards provided that the arbitration was conducted fairly and in compliance with the parties’ agreement to arbitrate.

    What other means are available for real estate dispute resolution?

    If the parties do not wish to use mediation or arbitration to resolve real estate disputes then these would usually end up in court litigation.

    Court litigation can be expensive and it can take a long time get to a final judgment, particularly if the case goes all the way through the appeals process.

    Adoption of arbitration in real estate disputes is a great opportunity in Nigeria. It takes pressure off the courts, and Nigeria definitely has the infrastructure for it, with high-calibre lawyers experienced in arbitration, and arbitral institutions like the Lagos Court of Arbitration. Arbitration has a broader role in resolving not only real estate disputes, but shipping and other commercial disputes, and Nigeria is well placed to capitalise on this.

  • Stakeholders seek adoption of alternative dispute resolution

    The real estate industry has grown to become one of the most vibrant sectors of the nation’s economy, including that of Lagos State.

    This is why the infrastructural renewal policy of the government, including an increased public spending on capital projects has made Lagos State a destination of choice for both commercial and residential developers.

    However, owing to this high market demand and the potentials the sector holds, activities in the real estate sector has become susceptible to abuse by individuals who engage in nefarious and unconventional activities. This has often times led to conflict within the industry.

    But, this trend may soon be reversed. Last week, the Estate Agents Practitioners Association of Nigeria (EAPAN), in collaboration with the Lagos State Real Estate Transaction Department, (LASRETRAD), took steps to ensure an end to such happenings is put in place.

    At an annual Stakeholders’ Forum organised by LASRETRAD, themed: “Arbitration: A Better option To Dispute Resolution in Real Estate Practice,” Governor Akinwunmi Ambode, represented at the forum by his Special Adviser on Housing, Mrs. Aramide Giwanson, regretted that the number of court cases that the state’s Ministry of Housing has instituted as a result of issues arising from real estate transactions in recent times has not only become unprecedented, but also become a thorny issue. The forum aimed at proffering solutions to some anomalies in tenancy transactions in the state, the bulk of whose blame has been heaped on estate agents.

    “Therefore, the need to expeditiously dispose cases in order to sanitise and build confidence in the sector for the benefit of all stakeholders cannot be over-emphasised,” Ambode said.

    Addressing the forum, which held at the Adeyemi Bero Auditorium, Lagos State government Secretariat, Alausa, the state’s Commissioner for Housing, Gbolahan Lawal, said that in view of the importance of sector and its significant contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the country, it is imperative that activities in such a sector is adequately and properly regulated to enable it deliver at its optimum for the overall benefit of both practitioners and the entire citizenry. “In any human endeavour, conflict, misunderstanding and professional misconduct cannot be completely eliminated. This is more so in the course of real estate transactions,” he said, adding that the present administration’s desire for quick conflict resolution led to the pursuit of alternative dispute resolution in the current judicial system.

    The Guest Speaker, Mr. Juwon Adenuga, who is also an Estate Surveyor and Valuer, contended that with the understanding of disputes and resolution options, it could be taken for granted that the option of arbitration is better suited to resolve disputes than litigation. This is because it saves a lot of time and resources than going through the litigation process.

    He noted that intending and existing investors in the sector need the guidance of surveyors to make feasible and valuable decision before investing and even afterwards. This, according to Adenuga, is because investments in real estate are capital intensive and by implication, if proper discernment is not made, it can lead to huge losses on investments.

    “It’s important that incidents capable of resulting in financial losses are minimised. That is why disputes, being one of such incidents need to be resolved as efficiently as possible and it is in this regard one would see that arbitration is far better than litigation. It saves time, money and quickly restores healthy relationship among the contending parties,” Lawal noted.

    Adenuga also identified the various services provided in real estate practice to include valuation, feasibility and viability appraisal, projectproperty development, and noted that in the course of rendering these services, relationships are created, most of which are contractual and commercial in nature.

    The issue of estate agents and their role drew the greatest attention at the forum as a result of the several tenancy-related problems which has become a regular occurrence in urban cities.

    The President of the Nigerian Institution of Estate Surveyors and Valuers (NIESV), Dr. Bolarinde Patunola-Ajayi, while speaking at the forum, urged estate agents to flush out the bad eggs in their midst so as to save their profession. “Estate agency is more than business; it’s a profession and I urge the practitioners to see it as such. It’s our role as practitioners to collaborate with government to weed out fraudsters and quacks from the system. Let us uphold the code of conduct of our profession and sanitise it,” Patuola-Ajayi admonished.

    On his part, the President, Real Estate Agents in Nigeria, Mr. Kunle Adedeji, urged government to set up a monitoring team that will comprise of government officials and representative of various estate agent associations to serve as checks on activities of the operators in the sector. “I will implore government to ensure that tenancy law in Lagos is fully implemented and that can only be possible with collaboration of all stakeholders in the sector,” he said.

  • Trade dispute: workers urge govt to intervene

    Organised labour has urged the Federal Government to prevail upon, Game Discount World Nigeria Limited, to comply with a court judgment that mandated workers to be unionised in its Nigeria offices.

    The firm is a subsidiary of MASS Discounters whose head office is in South Africa.

    The workers, under the auspices of Shop and Distributive Trade Senior Staff Association (SHOPDIS), said despite two judgments from the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) and National Industrial Court (NIC), Abuja, to allow unionism, the management of the company has restrained workers from joining their unions.

    This, according to the association, is an infringement on their rights.

    Speaking with newsmen in Lagos, the General Secretary of SHOPDIS, Comrade Ola Oyegoke, decried the union’s ordeal. He said since 2010 when the association met to give the workers a platform for collective bargaining as a basis for regulating their condition of service, the management had shown that it has no respect for Nigeria’s laws.

    Oyegoke said SHOPDIS, in 2014, got an award over a trade dispute declared against Game management on the non-recognition of the union as a representative of the senior staff of the company who have signed membership authorisation forms, which were forwarded to the management since April 2010.

    “Though the management appealed against the judgment, the NIC in its ruling by Justice Isele in November last year, upheld the IAP award,” Oyegoke said.

    He said upon the NIC judgment in November last year, the union wrote the management of its plan to inaugurate the branch, but Game in a letter from its parent body and signed by Blake Walker, Legal Specialist: Africa Mass Discounters, replied the union that it could not permit the formal inauguration.

    Oyegoke said it was a ploy by the management to continue to enslave its members. He charged the Minister of Labour, Senator Chris Ngige to wade into the matter, as it believes in peaceful resolution rather than confrontation.

  • Police petitioned over land dispute

    Police petitioned over land dispute

    The police have been asked to intervene in a land dispute in Richard Estate at Sapati on the Lekki-Epe Expressway in Lagos.

    In a petition, a landlord, Mr Steve Ajose, is accusing a businessman of encroaching on his land.

    Ajose alleged that the businessman converted the 20 acres of land he sold to him in 1999 to 22 acres.

    The conversion, he claimed, was done in 2005 without the owners’ consent.

    Ajose, in the petition sent to the Area J Police Commander by his lawyer, Mr Dotun Adewole, said when his client confronted the businessman, he pleaded for understanding.

    But Ajose, he said, rejected his plea, adding that his client sheathe his sword following the intervention of a former police chief and some elders of the community.

    Things were said to have got to a head when, at the businessman’s instance, some miscreants destroyed the fence demarcating his land from others.

    The petitioner alleged that the businessman is now ‘’forcefully acquiring’’ land in the area and harassing those who challenged him.

    Adewole implored the police to call the businessman to order to prevent a breakdown of law and order.

     

  • Supreme Court fixes Jan 29 for judgment in Chevron, Britannia-U dispute

    Supreme Court fixes Jan 29 for judgment in Chevron, Britannia-U dispute

    The Supreme Court has fixed judgment for January 29 in the suit involving oil giant Chevron Nigeria, Britania-U Nigeria Ltd and Seplat Petroleum Development Company on the disputed sale of three oil blocks – Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) 52, 53 and 55.

    The dispute followed Chevron’s alleged refusal to transfer ownership of the oil blocks to Britannia-U, which claimed it out-bid other firms.

    The court chose the date for judgment after parties adopted their final written arguments last week.

    Counsel to the appellant (Britania-U) Rickey Tarfa (SAN), while adopting his client’s brief, noted that the appeal was in respect of the June 20, 2014 judgment of the Court of Appeal, which vacated the order of the Federal High Court in Abuja that parties should maintain the status quo regarding issues relating to the oil blocks.

    The Federal High Court in Abuja, on December 13, 2013, issued an interim injunction restraining Chevron from assigning OMLs 52, 53 and 55 to any of the unsuccessful bidding companies, including Seplat, in the bid won by Britannia-U in September, 2013.

    Tarfa urged the court to grant the motion for mandatory restorative order to revert parties to status quo before the appeal was lodged.

    He urged the court to uphold Britannia-U’s appeal, set aside the decision of the Appeal Court and dismiss the preliminary objections of Chevron and other respondents.

    Counsel to Seplat Damian Dodo (SAN) urged the court to dismiss the appeal, which he said was interlocutory.

    Dodo argued that the core issue raised in the Brittania-U appeal was whether or not the lower court was right to set aside the ex-parte order, which extended the interim injunction granted in favour of the appellant indefinitely when the substantive case was still pending.

    Uche Nwokedi (SAN), who represented Chevron and BNP Paribas Securities Corp (second and fourth respondents), adopted his respondent’s reply to the brief with his notice of preliminary objection to the appeal, which he said, was filed the same day with the reply to the brief.

    Counsel to Chevron USA Inc and Hermant Patel (third and fifth respondents) A.V. Etuwewe, told the court that his clients filed their reply on March 3, but deemed properly filed on March 23.

    Tarfa said the respondents’ game plan was to forestall the case so that they could use technicality to knock it off.

    He told the court that the respondents failed to realise that in the case, the 14 days did not apply because the statutes “say if you sue foreigners outside jurisdiction, they must be given 30 days before they can be compelled to appear before the court.”

    Tarfa added: “When the case resumed at the trial court, after the grant of ex-parte injunction, the respondents brought an objection that the court has no jurisdiction.

    “So we argued that in view of the objection that the court has no jurisdiction, what is the position then because the res must be preserved while the issue of jurisdiction is yet to be determined.

    “This was the reason the court made the preservative order over the res while fixing the preliminary objection for hearing on the first opportunity.”

    He urged the court not to allow respondents take undue advantage of the delay they engineered.

    Britannia-U is challenging the award of OMLs 52, 53 and 55 by Chevron Nigeria Ltd to Seplat Petroleum Development Company Ltd.

    Joined as defendants also are Chevron USA Inc, BNP Parbas Securities Corp, Hermant Petel and Seplat Petroleum Development Company Ltd.

    Britannia-U Nigeria Ltd sought a declaration that its final binding offer of $1,015,000,000 for acquisition of 40 per cent interest of Chevron Nigeria in oil mining leases 52, 53 and 56 was accepted by the first defendant.

    In its statement of claim, Britannia-U said the second defendant (Chevron USA) requested it to provide “firm board commitment letter” by its (plaintiff’s) bankers for the  balance of $765million, which it complied with.

    The plaintiff added that its bankers paid the money to the second defendant (Chevron Corp) at its Houston office on November 15, 2013, arguing that with the payment, the parties had entered into a binding contract for the acquisition of OMLs 52, 53 and 55 by the plaintiff.

    Britannia-U urged the court to hold that its revised bid of $1,015, 000, 000 for acquisition of the 40 per cent interest of Chevron Nigeria Ltd in Oil Mining Leases 52, 53 and 56 is binding and subsisting.

    The plaintiff also urged the court to hold that the Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit for $250 million representing 15 per cent of the company’s initial bid price of $1.667 billion, opened in favour of the first/second defendants on September 30, 2013, remained in force.

    The plaintiff maintained that by the irrevocable Letter of Credit, which formed part of the conditions laid down by first/second defendants and  for a binding bid, the SBLC was still being held by the first/second defendants Chevron Nigeria/(Chevron Corporation) to date.

    Britannia-U sought an order declaring that the first to fourth defendants had no right to proceed to invite bids, offer or accept, negotiate, purport or so represent or engage in any transaction or contract to transfer, sell, farm out or otherwise deal in, dispose of charge encumber, or divest the 40 per cent interest of Chevron Nigeria Ltd in Oil Mining Leases 52, 53 and 55 in Nigeria in favour of any other person or entity in disregard of the agreement between the plaintiff and the first defendant.

  • Nigeria, Ghana to settle $185m gas pipeline debt dispute

    The Nigerian and Ghanaian governments have supported amicable resolution of the $185 million owed the West African Gas Pipeline Company (WAPCo) and gas suppliers by the Volta River Authority’s (VRA) of Ghana.

    The West African Gas Pipeline Company Limited (WAPCo) is a limited liability company, which owns and operates the West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP). WAPCo is a joint venture between public and private sector companies from Nigeria, Benin, Togo and Ghana with a mandate to transport natural gas from Nigeria to customers in Benin, Togo and Ghana in a safe, responsible and reliable manner, at prices competitive with other fuel alternatives.

    The WAPCo Managing Director, Mr. Walter Perez, had told reporters that owing to the huge debt, gas delivery to VRA would be curtailed. The cut in gas supply to VRA, it was learnt, would negatively affect electricity supply to Ghana; hence the governments of the two countries have intervened to ensure that such action is not implemented.

    Currently, VRA and its gas shipper, N-Gas (a joint venture company owned by NNPC, Shell and Chevron that delivers gas through the West African Gas Pipeline Company (WAGPCo) to Ghana), are in discussion, with the support of governments of the two countries. The outcome of the discussion would determine if WAPCo and N-Gas would go ahead with the plan to curtail gas supply to VRA.

    Perez said: “Since August 2014, VRA has received natural gas and pipeline-related transportation services totaling $231 million through the West African Gas Pipeline (WAGP). As of today, VRA has paid only $46 million of this amount. Of the outstanding balance of $185 million, VRA owes $109 million to WAPCo with the balance being owed to the other parties in the gas supply chain.

    “ WAPCo has regularly engaged VRA, the Ghana Public Utilities and Regulatory Commission (PURC), the relevant ministries, and even the highest level of the government to find a solution to this situation before it reached crisis level.  Unfortunately, these efforts have not achieved the desired result.

    “Just one month ago, WAPCo received a formal notification from VRA’s gas shipper, N-Gas, that deliveries to VRA should be curtailed effective 16 October 2015.  In doing so, N-Gas informed WAPCo of the intent of one of its major gas suppliers, Nigeria National Petroleum Company (NNPC), to curtail gas supply as a result of N-Gas being in payment default due to the inability of VRA to settle its gas supply and gas transportation invoices.”

    He continued:“We are very certain those in positions of authority in Ghana are fully aware of this information, and we are hopeful they are taking appropriate action to prevent curtailment.  Otherwise, WAPCo is contractually obligated to curtail deliveries to VRA.

    “WAPCo management is keenly aware and sensitive to the effect that this directive from N-Gas could have on power generation in Ghana.”