GOBOWEN EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION LTD v. DRILLOG PETRO-DYNAMICS LTD
(2021)LCN/15010(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, February 04, 2021
CA/L/935/2018
RATIO
APPEAL: EFFECT OF AN ACADEMIC APPEAL
Consequent on that decision, this appeal is now academic and shall not attract further judicial attention. PER JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
Before Our Lordships:
Ahmad Olarewaju Belgore Justice of the Court of Appeal
Paul Obi Elechi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
GOBOWEN EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION LIMITED APPELANT(S)
And
DRILLOG PETRO-DYNAMICS LIMITED RESPONDENT(S)
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, holden at Lagos, delivered on the 28th day of September, 2016 by BUBA, J.
Following the failure of the Appellant to settle outstanding invoices in respect of oil well drilling services rendered to it by the Respondent, the Respondent initiated proceedings at the trial Court under the undefended list procedure wherein it sought the following reliefs:
a. Judgment in the sum of $11,824,586.86 USD being due but unpaid invoices delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff in respect of oil well drilling services rendered to the defendant at its oil well known as ORIRI 2 WELL in Bayelsa State of Nigeria.
b. Interest at the rate of 15% per annum, in accordance with Clause 16.10 of the Service Contract between the parties on the sum of $11,824,586.86 USD from 1st March 2016 until the whole judgment is fully liquidated.
c. Cost of this action.
The response of the Appellant to this action was an originating motion wherein it sought a stay of proceedings on the grounds that the
1
action was in breach of the arbitration clause of the operating service contract between the parties.
The learned trial Judge heard arguments on the said motion for stay of proceedings at the end of which his lordship delivered a considered ruling wherein the request for stay of proceedings was rejected and thereafter judgment was entered for the Respondent based on the undefended list procedure.
Dissatisfied with the failure of its application for stay of proceedings, the Appellant invoked the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court via a Notice of Appeal filed on the 4th July, 2018 pursuant to the leave of this Court granted on the 20th June, 2018.
At the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Obi, SAN, the lead senior counsel for the Appellant, adopted the Appellant’s brief filed on the 27th August, 2018 as well as the Appellant’s Reply brief filed on the 25th February, 2019 but deemed properly filed and served on the 26th February, 2019 as the arguments of the Appellant in furtherance of the appeal.
Mr. Bade-John the learned lead counsel for the Respondent adopted the Respondent’s brief filed on the 30th January, 2019 but also deemed properly
2
filed and served on the 26th February, 2019 as the arguments of the Respondent in contesting the appeal.
The Appellant distilled two issues for determination as follows:
1. Whether, in consideration of the terms and conditions of the contract, the Respondent was not in breach when it resorted to the Federal High Court for its claim instead of arbitration.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge did not re-write the subject contract for the parties when he dismissed the Appellant’s motion for stay pending arbitration on the ground, among others, that Appellant had not taken steps to commence arbitration against the Respondent.
The Respondent on its part distilled a lone issue for determination thus:
Whether the said clause 31 compels arbitration as a precondition to litigation and whether the lower Court was right to have dismissed the appellant’s application for stay of proceedings at the lower Court.
The issues herein are apparently subject to the fate of APPEAL NO. CA/L/1338/2016 contested before us by the same parties. In the said APPEAL NO. CA/L/1338/2016, this Court found that Suit No: FHC/L/CS/373/2016 from which this
3
appeal arose was not competent as the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it upon which the said Suit No: FHC/L/CS/373/2016 was struck out.
Consequent on that decision, this appeal is now academic and shall not attract further judicial attention.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.
AHMAD OLAREWAJU BELGORE, J.C.A.: In Appeal No. CA/L/1338/2016, this Court found that the Suit No. FHC/L/CS/373/2016 from which that Appeal and the instant appeal emanated was incompetent and that the Lower Court acted without jurisdiction.
I agree with my Learned Brother JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, JCA, that this Appeal is meritorious and should be allowed.
I allow the Appeal.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.: I agree.
4
Appearances:
Mr. Uche V. Obi, SAN, with him, Dr. J.J. Odinkanigbo For Appellant(s)
Mr. O. Bade-John, with him, L. Okoloagu Esq. For Respondent(s)
