The Federal High Court, Lagos, yesterday fixed June 25 for trial in a suit by three oil firms against the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) over an alleged imposition of drilling charges.
The plaintiffs are: Transocean Sedco Forex, Noble Drilling Ltd, and Pacific International Drilling Ltd.
They are challenging the charges imposed on them by the NPA for their drilling activities within the Exclusive Economic Zone.
When the case was mentioned, counsel to the plaintiff, Mr Chris Ache, informed the court of a pending motion for substitution of witness.
The Federal High Court, Lagos, yesterday fixed June 25 for trial in a suit by three oil firms against the Nigerian Ports Authority (NPA) over an alleged imposition of drilling charges.
The plaintiffs are: Transocean Sedco Forex, Noble Drilling Ltd, and Pacific International Drilling Ltd.
They are challenging the charges imposed on them by the NPA for their drilling activities within the Exclusive Economic Zone.
When the case was mentioned, counsel to the plaintiff, Mr Chris Ache, informed the court of a pending motion for substitution of witness.
He told the court that the plaintiff intended to substitute its original witness with a new witness, and prayed the court for an order, deeming the witness as duly substituted.
Defence counsel, Mr Ame Ogie, did not oppose the application for substitution, but prayed the court for a trial date.
In his ruling, Justice James Tsoho, granted the plaintiff's application, and adjourned the case to June 25 for trial.
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs contended that the NPA had imposed on them charges running into millions of dollars for drilling within the EEZ.
They averred that four oil companies, Shell, Mobil, Chevron and Total, had engaged their services to prospect for oil within the EEZ.
They argued that as drilling companies, they take their rigs directly from location at the EEZ because they did not fall within the definition of cargo which must be discharged at the conventional ports.
They also argued that since the Minister of Transport did not declare the EEZ as a compulsory pilotage districts, they were not under any obligation to pay pilotage dues.
Consequently, the drilling giants filed the suit challenging the NPA's demand for the charges.
In its statement of defence, the NPA argued that when the oil giants engaged the services of the plaintiffs to drill, the plaintiffs took their rigs directly to the EEZ without necessary permit.
The NPA said rigs were usually brought in from abroad, adding that the drilling companies must obtain temporary import permits to bring them in as cargoes.
It said the companies defaulted in the procedure so as to prevent payment of import duties.
He said that permission was never sought and obtained by the plaintiffs.
The defendants also argued that under the provisions of Customs Act, the rigs should be discharged at regular ports before being taken to offshore drilling sites in the EEZ.
According to NPA, an exception arises when drilling companies obtain waivers to take the rigs directly to the offshore sites, adding that the plaintiffs did not also obtain such waiver.
The defendant argued that the drilling companies must pay the dues as stipulated under the Compulsory Pilotage Order of 1996, which declares the EEZ as compulsory pilotage districts.
Discussion about this post