Mohammed Abacha, son of Sani Abacha, the late former military head of state, has begun the process of challenging a judgment of the court of appeal which dismissed his bid to reclaim ownership of the OPL 245 oil well.
Abacha’s team of lawyers, led by Reuben Atabo, has filed a motion on notice at the court of appeal, seeking leave to formally appeal the May 23 judgment at the supreme court.
Malabu Oil and Gas Ltd had commenced a suit at the federal high court challenging the reallocation of oil prospecting licence (OPL) 245 oil well to Agip and Shell.
Agip’s legal team, led by Babatunde Fagbohunlu, filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the federal high court on several grounds, including a claim that the suit was statute-barred, having been filed over five years after the said allocation.
On December 22, 2020, the trial court dismissed Agip’s preliminary objection against Malabu Oil’s case.
Parties then approached the appeal court for redress.
Appeal Court Judgment
In a judgment delivered on May 23, 2025, a three-member panel of the appellate court nullified the ruling of the federal high court.
Hamma Akawu Barka, who led the panel of justices, held that the lower court had merely struck out the preliminary objection of Agip without resolving the issues it raised on fair hearing, abuse of court process, and the case being statute-barred.
The judge, in a unanimous three-man judgment, agreed “that the key issues highlighted by Agip were not pronounced upon or resolved by the lower court”.
He resolved this issue in favour of Agip and also held that the court action by Malabu Oil at the lower court was filed outside the three-month timeline stipulated for such matters.
Consequently, the appellate court “set aside” the federal high court’s judgment delivered by Binta Nyako.
The Race To Supreme Court
In the motion filed on June 4, Malabu is asking the court of appeal for leave to appeal to the supreme court against the May 23 judgment on the grounds of mixed law and fact.
The motion is also seeking leave to raise new or fresh issues of law in the appeal to the supreme court concerning “grounds 1, 3, 4, 9, 14, 16 and 17 of the proposed notice of appeal”.
Edwin John, who deposed to the affidavit, stated that there are serious questions of law to be tried by the supreme court in the appeal arising from the May 23 judgment.
John further stated that “there is the likelihood and real possibility of the success of the appeal in the supreme court”.
He said it would be in the “interest of justice to grant this motion, especially as the respondents shall not in any way be prejudiced”.
He added that the course of justice would be better served if the motion were granted to enable the applicant to exercise the constitutional right of appeal against the May 23 decision
