$3.5bn Egina FPSO: Samsung accused of disregarding court order



Samsung Heavy Indus­tries Nigeria has been accused of flagrant disregard for a subsisting Federal High Court order regarding a case between Mr. John Iyene Owubokiri and Attorney General of the Federation over the $3.5 bil­lion Egina Floating Produc­tion Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Vessel.

Egina is the third deep off­shore development of Total in Nigeria. The field is currently under development and the production is scheduled to be­gin by the end of 2017.

Located about 20km away from Akpo field, Egina field lies within the block Oil Mining Lease OML 130 and covers an area of around 500 square miles. It is situated at a water depth of up to 1,750m.

Egina field infrastructure will include an FPSO unit, an oil offloading terminal and subsea production systems such as risers, 52km of oil and water injection flowlines, 12 flexible jumpers, 20km of gas export pipelines, 80km of um­bilicals, and subsea manifolds.

The suit calls to ques­tion what it described 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 defendants, 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.

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) in the processes argued 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.

Represented by its Compa­ny Secretary and Legal 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 time and adjournment to put in his 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 Enitan protested, noting that a date in February would be preferable subject to the convenience of the court.

Source : SunOnline

Tags: No tags

Comments are closed.