LONG THREAD ALERT!

Please read slowing.
Slooowly.

The Federal High Court in Lagos on Monday upheld a landmark $1.7billion arbitral award in favour of the Nigerian Petroleum Development Co. (NPDC) Ltd against the Atlantic Energy Drilling Concepts Nig. Ltd and Atlantic Energy Brass Development Ltd.
Justice A. Faji dismissed Atlantic Energy’s application to set aside the Arbitral Award of March 5, 2020.
He upheld the submissions of NPDC lead counsel Prof Fabian Ajogwu SAN and granted orders recognising the $1.7bn Arbitral Award as well as for leave to enforce same as a judgment of the Federal High Court.
This landmark decision upholds one of the single largest Awards ever in a Nigerian Arbitration.
Sometime in August 2015, Atlantic Energy, through its lawyer, T. Fagbohunlu SAN, took the NNPC to arbitration for alleged breach of contract.
NPDC in response, filed a counter-claim for funds due to the Federal Government on account of crude oil sales from the Oil Mining Leases (OMLS) 26, 30, 34, 42, 60, 61, 62 and 63 (known as ‘Brass and Forcados assets’) without payment of remittances due.
NPDC also sought the recovery of unpaid net approved cash calls in respect of the OMLs.

On March 5, 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal in agreeing with Ajogwu’s arguments, delivered a landmark Arbitral Award of $1.7bn in the NPDC’s favour.
It ordered Atlantic Energy pay the $1.7bn to NPDC as the value of the 55 per cent crude oil portion of the Federal Government taken and sold by Atlantic but not remitted to NNPC.
Atlantic Energy (Award debtors) sought an Order of Court to set aside the arbitral award delivered in favour of NPDC because the Arbitral Tribunal allegedly misconducted itself by wrongfully assuming jurisdiction over NPDC’s Counter-Claim,
and dismissing their preliminary objection to the said Counter-Claim.

NPDC, at the same time, sought for an Order of Court to recognise and enforce the arbitral award.
In upholding Ajogwu’s submissions,
Justice A. Faji of the Federal High Court, held that NPDC’s Counter-Claim in the Arbitration was distinct in all material respects from the suit referred to by the Award Debtors.
According to the Judge, as rightly argued by Ajogwu,, whilst the claim in suit 701 touched on criminal conversion/ diversion of revenue due to the Federation, the counter-claim to the Arbitration bordered on breach of the
Strategic Alliance Agreement between NPDC and the Award Debtors.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Award Debtors’ application to set aside the Arbitral Award.
This landmark decision settled the question of the impact of non-payment of signature fees on lifted crude oil as well as the principles of Unjust Enrichment in Crude oil lifting and recovery.
Furthermore, the significance of this Arbitration to Nigeria, which depends mostly on Crude oil for revenue generation and economic development is enormous for the Nigerian economy, which is heavily dependent on crude oil revenues.
https://t.co/kxvwYLsSPg

More from Law

I’ve been reading lots recently about the interaction between First Amendment law and free speech principles with respect to online services in light of the events of the last few weeks.

And I have thoughts (MY OWN). So, I’m sorry ... a thread 1/25

One of the main reasons I think users are best served by a recognition that social media services have 1st Amendment rights to curate the content on their sites is because many users want filtered content, either by topic, or by behavior, or other. 2/

So online services should have the right to do this filtering, and to give their users the tools to do so too. For more detail see our Prager U amicus brief
https://t.co/73PswB9Q7Q 3/

So, I disagree with my friends (and others) who say that every online service should apply First Amendment rules, even though they cannot be required to do so. There are both practical and policy reasons why I don’t like this. 4/

Most obviously, the 1st Amendment reflects only one national legal system when this is inherently an international issue. So it’s politically messy, even if you think a 1st Amendment-based policy will be most speech-protective (though probably only non-sexual speakers). 5/

You May Also Like

The first ever world map was sketched thousands of years ago by Indian saint
“Ramanujacharya” who simply translated the following verse from Mahabharat and gave the world its real face

In Mahabharat,it is described how 'Maharishi Ved Vyasa' gave away his divine vision to Sanjay


Dhritarashtra's charioteer so that he could describe him the events of the upcoming war.

But, even before questions of war could begin, Dhritarashtra asked him to describe how the world looks like from space.

This is how he described the face of the world:

सुदर्शनं प्रवक्ष्यामि द्वीपं तु कुरुनन्दन। परिमण्डलो महाराज द्वीपोऽसौ चक्रसंस्थितः॥
यथा हि पुरुषः पश्येदादर्शे मुखमात्मनः। एवं सुदर्शनद्वीपो दृश्यते चन्द्रमण्डले॥ द्विरंशे पिप्पलस्तत्र द्विरंशे च शशो महान्।

—वेद व्यास, भीष्म पर्व, महाभारत


Meaning:-

हे कुरुनन्दन ! सुदर्शन नामक यह द्वीप चक्र की भाँति गोलाकार स्थित है, जैसे पुरुष दर्पण में अपना मुख देखता है, उसी प्रकार यह द्वीप चन्द्रमण्डल में दिखायी देता है। इसके दो अंशो मे पीपल और दो अंशो मे विशाल शश (खरगोश) दिखायी देता है।


Meaning: "Just like a man sees his face in the mirror, so does the Earth appears in the Universe. In the first part you see leaves of the Peepal Tree, and in the next part you see a Rabbit."

Based on this shloka, Saint Ramanujacharya sketched out the map, but the world laughed