Samsung accused of disregarding court order over Egina FPSO



10 February 2015, Sweetcrude, Lagos – Samsung Heavy Industries Nigeria has been accused of flagrant disregard for a subsisting federal high court order regarding suit NO: FHC/L/CSlL768l2O14 between Mr. John Iyene Owubokiri and Attorney General of Federation & Others.

The suit calls to question what it describes as the flawed processes leading up to the award of the Egina FPSO contract to Samsung Heavy Industries, and is asking the court to set it aside.

At the resumed sitting of the court in Lagos last Wednesday Olukayode Enitan, counsel to the Plaintiff informed the Court of the flagrant and reckless manner the
Defendants, particularly the 4th and 5th have continued to breach the order of the Court
‘that the status quo be maintained’ and asked the Court to make orders of interim injunction to restrain the Defendants pending the hearing and determination of the motion for interlocutory injunction.

The Court directed that the orders made being an executory and live orders if being
breached is at risk of the Defendants.

Olukayode Enitan then informed the Court that he would proceed to do the needful by bringing appropriate processes in that regard.

The 4th Defendant (Samsung Heavy Industries Nigeria) filed the following processes; Memorandum of Appearance, Notice of Preliminary Objection contesting the jurisdiction of Court on ground that the plaintiff does not have locus standi to institute the action, especially since he was not a party to the events that led to award of the contract.

The 4th Defendant was represented by its Company Secretary as well as legal counsel, while the 5th Defendant (Total Upstream Companies) was also represented by Counsel.

The 4th Defendant also filed a Counter Affidavit in opposing the Plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction, while requesting an extension of time to file their processes.

At the commencement of the court proceedings earlier, Counsel to the 5th Defendant informed the Court that he has just been briefed by his client and prayed the Court to grant him an adjournment to put in their processes.

The 4th and 5th Defendants thereafter sought an adjournment to enable them tidy up their paperwork before the Court.

The Defendants requested an adjournment to the middle of March but Olukayode
Enitan protested, noting that a date in February would be preferable subject to the convenience of the Court.

Consequently, the suit was adjourned till 25th February,2O15 for hearing of all pending

About the Author