Federal High Court, Port Harcourt, has reaffirmed its earlier judgment directing China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) to pay $100 million to Cutra International Limited over the disputed Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL) 471, rejecting the company’s attempt to overturn the ruling.
Justice Adamu Mohammed dismissed CNPC’s application seeking to set aside the court’s judgment delivered on May 23, 2025.
He held that the issues raised had already been conclusively determined and that the court had become functus officio, meaning it lacked the authority to revisit the matter.
The ruling effectively opens the path for Cutra International to proceed with enforcement actions, including garnishee proceedings, following the landmark judgment stemming from the controversial relinquishment of the oil block to the Federal Government.
Justice Mohammed said: “At this juncture, it is to be noted that, when a Court takes a position on a matter in controversy before it, that Court becomes functus officio with respect to that matter in controversy, and the Court stands and remains bound by the decision.”
The dispute centres on OPL 471, an oil block allocated during Nigeria’s 2006 mini-bid licensing round.
In its substantive judgment delivered on May 23, 2025, the court held that Cutra International was entitled to a 10 per cent equity stake in the block, having been designated as the local content partner under the award letter issued by the Ministry of Petroleum Resources on June 29, 2006.
The court found that CNPC’s decision to return the oil block to the Federal Government on November 1, 2015, without the knowledge or consent of Cutra, amounted to a violation of the Nigerian firm’s proprietary rights.
“Having carefully perused and considered the letter dated June 29, 2006, being Exhibit A attached to the affidavit in support, I have indeed found that, by that letter, the applicant was the local content vehicle for OPL 471 and the equity participation for the applicant is 10 per cent. I so hold,” the judge had ruled in the earlier judgment.
Justice Mohammed further affirmed that the Ministry of Petroleum Resources had jointly awarded the oil block to both parties, reinforcing Cutra’s entitlement to its stake.
“In my view, the applicant has proved that the Ministry of Petroleum Resources awarded OPL 471 to both the applicant and the defendant and the equity participation of 10 per cent in favour of the applicant,” he held.
Although Cutra had sought $500 million in damages, arguing that the sum represented its projected minimum earnings from the oil block, the court found that aspects of the claim were not strictly proved and instead awarded $100 million as reasonable compensation.
“In the light of the foregoing, what I assess and find reasonable is to award the sum of USD$100 million in favour of the applicant against the defendant. I so hold,” Justice Mohammed stated.
Dissatisfied, CNPC filed an application on October 28, 2025, seeking an extension of time to challenge the judgment, an order to vacate substituted service, and the striking out of the originating summons, alongside dismissal of the suit.
The corporation argued that it was denied a fair hearing, claiming it was never properly served with court processes and only became aware of the proceedings after garnishee actions were initiated against its accounts.
It also maintained that the originating summons had lapsed and that, as a foreign entity, service ought to have been effected through diplomatic channels.
However, Cutra opposed the application, insisting that CNPC had been duly notified through multiple channels, including DHL courier services, email correspondence, and publication in national newspapers.
In resolving the dispute, Justice Mohammed agreed with Cutra, confirming that the company had been properly served but failed to respond or appear before the court.
On the issue of fair hearing, the court held firmly that the matter had already been settled in the earlier judgment and could not be reopened.
The court also rejected CNPC’s argument that the originating summons had expired, pointing to its earlier order renewing the process.
On the argument that service should have been effected through diplomatic channels, Justice Mohammed held that under Order 6 Rule 20 of the Federal High Court Rules, such provisions apply only where a relevant international convention exists.
Dismissing the application in its entirety, Justice Mohammed held that, “based on the foregoing decisions of this court, I am of the view that it will not be in the interest of justice to grant any of the reliefs sought in the instant application and is accordingly dismissed.”
In this article