The suit seeks to block assigning, or allocating the oil fields in Yorla South in Rivers State.
The Minister of State for Petroleum Resources (Oil), Heineken Lokpobiri, the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) on Monday urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to dismiss a suit challenging the proposed allocation of four oil fields.
The trio made the request through their notices of preliminary objection, arguing that the plaintiffs, Hi Rev Oil Limited and Hi Rev Exploration and Production Ltd, lacked the legal basis to sustain the case.
The plaintiffs had sought an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants, or anyone acting on their behalf, from selling, assigning, or allocating Yorla South (Petroleum Prospecting Licence (PPL) 2A32 - OML 11) in Rivers State.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
They made the request through an ex-parte motion, but on 22 December 2025, the judge, Emeka Nwite, ordered the minister, the AGF, and NUPRC to show cause why the prayers sought should not be granted.
When the matter was heard on 5 January, all defendants were represented.
However, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Ambrose Unaeze, told the court that he needed time to respond to memoranda of conditional appearance, counter-affidavits, and preliminary objections, served to him that day.
No case against us - Minister, NUPRC, AGF
Rather than file affidavits to show cause, the defendants argued that their preliminary objections and counter-affidavits sufficiently addressed the plaintiffs' application.
The judge on that day granted the plaintiffs' application directing all parties to maintain the status quo and adjourned the hearing until 26 January.
On Monday, Mr Unaeze informed the court that he had responded to preliminary objections served by all the defendants, prompting the judge to announce he would first address the issue of jurisdiction.
The minister's preliminary objection, filed on 21 January, was moved by his lawyer, Michael Numa, who argued that the court lacked jurisdiction since there was no specific "allocation" of oil fields to the plaintiffs.
Mr Numa stated that the plaintiffs contended that the federal government had promised them additional oil fields beyond those allocated in 2002, but that allocation was usually made through proper bid processes. "Allocation must follow due procedures, and a party must meet technical and legal requirements before a specific allocation arises," he explained.
He further stressed that the federal government has statutory powers to allocate oil fields and that a promise alone does not create an enforceable right.
"Therefore, there is no reasonable cause of action in this case, and the court cannot create a legal right for the claimants because the process of allocation is always founded on statutory provisions meant to be protected by the court, not for the court to create one," said Mr Numa
He added that the court cannot act on promises where no specific asset exists to ground the relief sought, particularly as one of the fields had already been assigned to another party.
Similarly, the AGF, represented by Oyinlola Koleosho, in his preliminary objection filed on 5 January, asked the court to dismiss the case of the plaintiffs, describing it as "speculative".
He claimed that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi over the four oil fields since no agreement existed.
Also, the NUPRC, represented by O.M. Atoyeji, in its preliminary objection filed on 20 January, also urged the court to strike out the case.
Mr Atoyeji argued that the promises relied upon by the plaintiffs did not automatically confer a legal right. He also contended that the action was not filed within the statutory period prescribed by the Public Officers Protection Act and the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021.
Plaintiffs response
Responding to the defendants objections, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Mr Unaeze, said his clients had the right to court protection.
He warned that without the court compelling the defendants, the fields would be allocated to the public.
He added that the parties had held several meetings with the defendants and paid the promotion fees. He said the plaintiffs had also been granted refineries and licences, but the government "now claimed they had no rights."
"We are not saying your lordship should interpret the judgement or enforce the consent judgement they referred to; we are talking about the responsibility placed on them by that judgement," he said.
Mr Unaeze therefore urged the court to dismiss the AGF's application, arguing that locus standi raised by the AGF should not have been raised yet.
He also asked the court to reject the NUPRC objection, saying that a party that had accepted wrongdoing could not be shielded by law.
Responding to his submissions, Mr Numa, the minister's lawyer, countered that the signature bonus paid in 2002 predated the current statutory provisions of the PIA and that the original claim had been superseded by the settlement and consent judgement.
He said references to the out-of-court settlement could not form the basis of the current action.
Informing the court that third parties were already showing interest in the oil fields, the defendants' lawyers asked whether the 5 January order on status quo was still binding.
The judge asked, "When a matter is before the court, what are parties expected to do?"
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Mr Numa answered that they must refrain from any action that would affect the case.
The judge explained that although preliminary objections were being heard, parties must not do anything affecting the substance of the case.
He then adjourned proceedings until 20 April for ruling on the preliminary objections.
The interim order
IsThe plaintiffs' interim order sought to restrain the defendants from allocating Akiapiri (PPL 2A48 - OML 25) and Diebu Creek East (OML 32) in Bayelsa State, and Idiok (PPL 2A41 - OML 67) in Akwa Ibom State. These fields were direct replacements for the Utapate Oil Field (formerly part of OML 13) and OPL 2002, previously allocated to the plaintiffs but later withdrawn.
Mr Unaeze, the plaintiffs' lawyer, said his clients were unreasonably withdrawn from the Utapate Oil Field and OPL 2002. He said a settlement agreement had been reached for replacement, which was adopted as a consent judgement.
He added that the firms had taken substantial steps and offered consideration for the grant of the licence to operate OPL and establish a petroleum refinery.
He argued that the defendants' threat to allocate the fields to third parties via public bidding warranted the interim order.
