FG Seek Dismissal Of Judgement Awarding N 5 Billion, Reinstating Ararume As NNPCL Chairman

The Federal Government has asked the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja Division to reverse the judgement awarding N5 billion and reinstating the Chairman of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Ltd (NNPCL), Ifeanyi Ararume.

Naija News recalls that on April 18, a Federal High Court sitting in Abuja among other things reinstated and awarded N5 billion to Ararume for damages.

Ararume had dragged the federal government to court in September 12, 2022, to challenge the former President Muhammadu Buhari’s reversal of his appointment as the Non-Executive Chairman of the NNPCL via a letter dated January 17, 2022.

The trial Judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo in a suit marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/1621/2022, faulted Buhari’s action, and ordered Ararume’s reinstatement and also awarded N5 billion damages in his favour.

However, in a latest development, the federal government in a notice of appeal said it was on the eight grounds filed in the name of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria by a team of lawyers from the Federal Ministry of Justice, led by Tijani Gazali (SAN).

The notice also argued that he (Ararume) did not establish his entitlement to such a huge compensation, therefore faulting the judgement.

The government also challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to have heard the case and also queriesd the competence of the suit, arguing that it was statute barred.

In its first ground of appeal, the government faulted the trial judge for assuming jurisdiction over the case which borders on the withdrawal of Ararume’s appointment as the Non-Executive Chairman of the NNPCL.

It argued further argued that, under the provision of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act and Section 254(c) of the Constitution, the NIC has exclusive jurisdiction in civil matters bordering on labour and employment.

It said “The provision of Section of Section 254(c) of the Constitution is made notwithstanding anything to the contrary provided in Section 251 of the Constitution (which dictates the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court). The provision takes precedence over Section 251 of the Constitution on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The office of the Non-Executive Chairman was not contemplated under the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020.

“Hence, CAMA does not regulate the appointment and withdrawal from office, to vest the determination of such question on the Federal High Court. The Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.”

In ground two, the appellants faulted the trial judge for assuming jurisdiction over the suit “which was statute barred, having been filed more than three months after the accrual of the cause of action and in breach of Section of 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act.”