Detains Vessels: A-Court trikes out NLNG's objection to NIMASA's appeal

(Nigeria) The Court of Appeal sitting in Lagos, has struck out the objection by igeria Liquefied Natural Gas Limited, NLNG, against the decision of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency, NIMASA, to appeal against the refusal of the Federal High Court, Lagos to discharge an order of interim injunction against the Agency.

In a bench ruling delivered by the appellate court presided over by Justice Sidi Bage, the court  held that objection by NLNG was premature as same could not stand.

The court also held that all necessary materials like the ruling being appealed against and the notice of appeal of NIMASA were not placed before it by the NLNG.

The appellate court which also had Justices Rita Pemu and Chinwe Iyizoba as members of its panel consequently overruled the NLNG and threw out its objection.

It will be recalled that Justice Mohammed Idris of the Federal High Court, Lagos had in June 2013 granted an order, restraining the AGF; NIMASA; Global West Vessel Specialists Nigeria Limited, GWVSNL, and other government agencies from further detaining or preventing the chartered vessels of the NLNG from carrying out import and export of gas through the Bonny channel or elsewhere in Nigeria.

The lower court had also held that the order would subsist pending the hearing and determination of a motion on notice for interlocutory injunction filed by the NLNG.

Dissatisfied with the ruling counsel to NIMASA, had appeal against the decision,  urging the appellate court to vacate the order.

But NLNG through its lawyer,  filed a notice of preliminary objection, asking the court to strike out the Notice of Appeal filed by NIMASA for being incompetent and/or a nullity in law.

NIMASA’s counsel had countered the objections of NLNG on the grounds that the company failed to attach to its objection the necessary materials such as the ruling being appealed, notice of appeal and NIMASA’s Motion on Notice arguing that these are essential materials the Court of Appeal must consider in deciding its objection.

It argued that by referring to these essential materials in its arguments, the NLNG was flirting with and veering into the domain of facts which it could not properly do without an affidavit in support of the objection to which it must have attached the essential materials.

While arguing that it was premature for the NLNG to object to NIMASA’s appeal when the appeal had not yet been entered in the Court of Appeal, the agency opined that NIMASA did not require the leave of court to file the appeal because it was constitutionally appealing as of right against the refusal of the Federal High Court to discharge the order of interim injunction made against it.

Counsel to the Attorney General of the Federation, and that of Global West Vessel Specialists Limited both aligned themselves with the arguments of NIMASA.

However,  the case before the Federal High Court has been adjourned till February 6 for the hearing of an application brought by Global West Vessel Specialists Limited to stay further proceedings in the suit before Justice Idris  pending the hearing and determination of its appeal and the appeals filed by NIMASA and the Attorney General of Federation.