The dispute hover oil fields in Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Bayelsa States.
The Federal High Court in Abuja, on Monday, ordered Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil) Heineken Lokpobiri and others to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of a case involving four oil fields.
Judge Emeka Nwite gave the order after the plaintiffs, Hi-Rev Oil Limited and Hi-Rev Exploration and Production Ltd, represented by lawyer Ambrose Unaeze, urged the court to give the order, citing "nature of the case and the risk it may face before the adjourned date."
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Earlier on 22 December 2025, the judge ordered the defendants to show cause why the prayers of the plaintiffs in their motion ex parte should not be granted.
Other defendants in the suit alongside Mr Lokpobiri are the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC).
The oil and gas companies had, in the motion filed on 11 December last year, sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants or whoever is acting on their behest from selling, assigning, or allocating the Yorla South (Petroleum Prospecting Licence (PPL) 2A32 - OML 11) located in Rivers State.
They also sought an order restaining defendants from allocating Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 - OML 25) located in Bayelsa; Diebu Creek East (OML 32) also located in Bayelsa; and Idiok (PPL 2A41 - OML 67) located in Akwa Ibom.
They claimed the OMLs were direct replacements for Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, previously allocated to the plaintiff but were later withdrawn by the defendants, pending the hearing of an interlocutory injunction.
Mr Unaeze had given four reasons why their application should be granted. The lawyer said the companies were previously allocated the Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, but were unreasonably withdrawn by the federal government.
He also said the parties had a settlement agreement for the replacement of the Utapate Oil Field, which was accepted or adopted and it became a consent judgement.
Mr Unaeze further stated that the firms had taken substantial steps and offered consideration in respect of the grant of the licence to operate OPL and licence to establish a petroleum refinery.
He argued that the companies' legal right is being threatened by the defendants, pursuant to the threat to sell or allocate the oil fields at Yorla South, Akiapiri, Diebu Creek East, and Idiok to third parties via the defendants' offer to the public for round bid, hence the need for the interim order.
After hearing his argument, the judge did not grant the orders, as prayed, but however ordered the defendants to appear on 5 January (today).
Order to maintain status quo
At the resumed hearing on Monday, Mr Unaeze told the court that Mr Lokpobiri and NUPRC had just served him their memorandum of conditional appearance, counter-affidavit, and preliminary objection in court and that he would need time to respond.
He, however, applied that the defendants, who were duly represented in court by their lawyers, should give an undertaking not to take any action that might affect the subject matter pending the hearing and determination of the case.
"This is because of the nature of the case and the risk it may face before the next adjourned date," he said.
On the other hand, AGF's lawyer, Oyinlade Koleoso, said his client also filed a counter-affidavit and a preliminary objection, though they were yet to serve the plaintiffs.
When the judge asked him if he had filed an affidavit to show cause, Mr Koleoso said he believed that the processes he had filed would take care of that.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The lawyer told the court that based on Mr Unaeze's application, their submission was that the AGF was not in the position to allocate oil blocks.
Also, NUPRC's lawyer, J. A. Olugbade, disagreed with Mr Unaeze's application.
And said he opposed the plaintiffs' submissions through the counter-affidavit and preliminary objection.
On the other hand, lawyer to Mr Lokpobiri, J. N Tabaya, said he did not have the instruction of his client to make such an undertaking sought by Mr Unaeze, prompting the judge to ask him what he was supposed to do "when case is in court."
Mr Tabaya responded that "parties will maintain status quo."
Delivering the ruling, Mr Nwite granted Unaeze's application and ordered the parties to maintain status quo pending the hearing and determination of the matter.
He then adjourned the matter until 26 January for hearing.
