NNPCL Chairman: Court adjourns Ararume’s N100bn suit to Jan. 23 for hearing

Justice Inyang Ekwo of the Federal High Court Abuja on Wednesday adjourned till January 23, for definite hearing of a N100Bn suit filed Senator Ifeanyi Ararume .

Ararume is challenging his removal by President Muhammadu Buhari as non-executive chairman of the Board of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL).

When the Matter came up on Wednesday the judge asked the lawyers in the matter to identify the processes they filed in respect of the case and it was discovered that the NNPCL had not file it’s counter affidavit to the originating summons.

Etidwe Uwa, SAN, counsel to NNPCL informed the Court that he had filed a preliminary objection challenging the process that was filed by Ararume , arguing that the application should be heard first and separately from the main suit.

He said it is important for the court to determine whether the matter ought to have commenced by originating summons or writ of summons.

The senior lawyer also told the court that he had not yet file counter affidavit to the substantive suit, and urged the court to hear his preliminary objection.

Justice Ekwo drew the counsel attention to the practice direction and stated that both the objection and substantive matter will be taking together.

Earlier, Chief Chris Uche SAN had drawn the attention of the Court to its order made on December 15, 2022 which directed all processes shall be filed and served on parties before Wednesday January 11, 2023. He therefore urged the court to hear the main suit as agreed upon by parties during the December sitting.

The judge refused Uche’s prayer stating that all processes must be in court and duly served on the parties before hearing.

The court on Wednesday struck out two separate applications filed by NNPCL for an extension of time to file counter affidavit .They were struck out following their withdrawal by Uwa. The court granted the another application for extension of time filed by NNPCL on January 5.

Justice Ekwo consequently adjourned the matter to January 23.

Recalled that Ararume had in suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/691/2022 through a group of senior lawyers comprising Chris Uche, Ahmed Raji, Mahmud Magaji, Ogwu James Onoja, Kingsley Nwufor and Gordy Uche, all SANs challenged his removal as chairman of NNPCL.

He commenced the action through an originating summons in September, 2022 where in he formulated four issues for determination by the court.

One of the issue is whether by the interpretation of Section 63 (3) of the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, the President can lawfully remove him as non-eecutive chairman of the NNPC Limited for any reason outside the provisions of the law.

He prayed for N100 billion suit as compensation for his alleged unlawful removal as a non-Executive Chairman of the NNPCL.

He demanded the sum as damages caused him in the alleged unlawful manner he was relieved of his job as the NNPCL chief after using his name to incorporate the entity.

Mr Ararume also wants the court to determine whether Mr Buhari can sack him without compliance with expressly stated provisions of the Articles of Memorandum of Association of the Company, section 63 (3) of the PIA Act 2021 and section 288 of the CAMA Act 2020.

He also urged the court to declare that by the provisions of section 63 (3) of the PIA Act, CAMA Act and Memorandum of Association of the NNPC, the President cannot by will remove him from office as non Executive Chairman without following due process of the law.

The plaintiff prayed for an order of the court setting aside his removal by Mr Buhari vide letter of January 17, 2022 with reference number SGF.3V111/86.

He also sought order of the court reinstating him forthwith and restoring him to office with all the appurtenant rights and privileges of the office of the NNPC non Executive Chairman.

The plaintiff further urged the court to for nullify and set aside of all decisions and resolutions of the NNPC Board made in his absence from 17 January 2022 till date, and another order restraining the defendants from removing his name as director of the company.