A
limited liability company Seistech Energy limited has filed a petition
before a Federal high court in Lagos south west Nigeria, urging the
court to wind up an exploration and production of crude oil company
Summit Oil International limited on the ground that the company is
insolvent and unable to pay its debt .
limited liability company Seistech Energy limited has filed a petition
before a Federal high court in Lagos south west Nigeria, urging the
court to wind up an exploration and production of crude oil company
Summit Oil International limited on the ground that the company is
insolvent and unable to pay its debt .
In a petition filed before the court by a Lagos lawyer, Barrister
Fidel Albert, on behalf of Seistech Energy company against Summit Oil
International limited, it was alleged that,Summit. Oil international
company is a joint leaseholder and joint developer of Oil Mining lease
OML 142 formerly OPL 205 ,in respect of the Otien-1Field located in the
Anambra basin on the North edge of the Niger -Delta.
Fidel Albert, on behalf of Seistech Energy company against Summit Oil
International limited, it was alleged that,Summit. Oil international
company is a joint leaseholder and joint developer of Oil Mining lease
OML 142 formerly OPL 205 ,in respect of the Otien-1Field located in the
Anambra basin on the North edge of the Niger -Delta.
The company was granted the Oil prospecting licence but could not
develop the asset for about 20 years, due to severe cash flow
constraints. It was also clear that the company lacked certain basic infrastructure
to transport the crude Oil and condensate from the production wells to
truck loading gantries, as well as the facility for transporting the
hydrocabon fluids preparatory to export.
develop the asset for about 20 years, due to severe cash flow
constraints. It was also clear that the company lacked certain basic infrastructure
to transport the crude Oil and condensate from the production wells to
truck loading gantries, as well as the facility for transporting the
hydrocabon fluids preparatory to export.
On the account of this actute infrastructural deficiency and the
technical know-how the company contracted the Petitioner Seistech Energy
limited vide the provision of installation and construction of other.
Delivery line contract of April, 2017.for an end to end design,
construction and installation of delivery line for the company including
provision of six storage tanks.
technical know-how the company contracted the Petitioner Seistech Energy
limited vide the provision of installation and construction of other.
Delivery line contract of April, 2017.for an end to end design,
construction and installation of delivery line for the company including
provision of six storage tanks.
However, after the completion of the contract, the petitioner issued
its invoice to the respondent for the payment of the first tranche of
the contract sum due in the sum of N11,868,703.75,representing 50% of
the contract price payable as mobilisation and same duly paid by the
respondent. However upon payment of the first mobilisation the respondent failed
to make subsequent tranche payments to the petitioner, as had been
agreed, as at when due.
The respondent did not dispute the Petitioner’s invoices but rather
gave several promises to liquidate them, but however failed to do so
till date.
gave several promises to liquidate them, but however failed to do so
till date.
The respondent was alleged to be indebted to the petitioner to the
tune of N69,210,671.75, as at June 2018,which accrued to the petitioner
as payment for the installation and construction of the respondent’s
Otien delivery line, including tank rentals associated with that work
scope.
tune of N69,210,671.75, as at June 2018,which accrued to the petitioner
as payment for the installation and construction of the respondent’s
Otien delivery line, including tank rentals associated with that work
scope.
The Petitioner avers that it has repeatedly made applications to the
respondent for payment of its debt but the company has failed and
neglected to pay same on account of insolvency and is unable to pay its
debts to its creditors as the obligation falls due.
respondent for payment of its debt but the company has failed and
neglected to pay same on account of insolvency and is unable to pay its
debts to its creditors as the obligation falls due.
In the circumstances, it is just and equitable that the company be
wound up. Consequently the Petitioner prays as follows:
wound up. Consequently the Petitioner prays as follows:
That Summit Oil international limited be wound up by this honorable
court under the provisions of the Company and Allied Matters Act on
grounds of its inability to pay its debts.
court under the provisions of the Company and Allied Matters Act on
grounds of its inability to pay its debts.
However in an affidavit in support of notice of preliminary
objection sworn to by Chief Financial Officer of Summit Oil
International limited Tajudeen Jinadu and filed before the Court by the
law firm of G. Elias and company, the respondent company averred that
the dispute between the two parties regarding the amount to be paid in
relation to the actual work done by the respondent is one which ought to
be resolved by parties by negotiations as the applicant is aware of
clause of the contract which is dispute resolution
objection sworn to by Chief Financial Officer of Summit Oil
International limited Tajudeen Jinadu and filed before the Court by the
law firm of G. Elias and company, the respondent company averred that
the dispute between the two parties regarding the amount to be paid in
relation to the actual work done by the respondent is one which ought to
be resolved by parties by negotiations as the applicant is aware of
clause of the contract which is dispute resolution
clause
which mandates both parties to resolve any dispute under the contract
by arbitration but rather than initiating arbitral proceedings to enable
the dispute to be resolved as agreed in the contract, the applicant
maliciously commenced this winding up proceedings against the
respondent
which mandates both parties to resolve any dispute under the contract
by arbitration but rather than initiating arbitral proceedings to enable
the dispute to be resolved as agreed in the contract, the applicant
maliciously commenced this winding up proceedings against the
respondent
The respondent is willing and able, to expeditiously proceed to
arbitration once referred to arbitration by the court or the respondent
gives it notice of reference to arbitration. Consequently the company contended that the court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain the petition,as the petition constitute an
abuse of court process, therefore it will serve the interest of justice
if the petition is struck out
arbitration once referred to arbitration by the court or the respondent
gives it notice of reference to arbitration. Consequently the company contended that the court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain the petition,as the petition constitute an
abuse of court process, therefore it will serve the interest of justice
if the petition is struck out
Meanwhile the case has been adjourned till 26th of September, 2018.for hearing.
