First Deepwater, Eco Bank Discontinues Admiralty Case Against Vessel; MT AYODEJI in Court

Coming on the heels of a suit filed by First Deepwater Nigeria Limited (in receivership) and Eco Bank Nigeria Limited, against defendants; Petroli Energy Marketing and Supply Limited; Shellplux Nigeria Limited and a tanker vessel, MT. Ayodeji, a “Notice of Discontinuance” has been issued, indicating that the Plaintiffs has discontinued the admiralty suit in its entirety against all the defendants.

It was earlier reported that an order was granted by Justice Yelim Bogoro of the Lagos Federal High Court for a warrant of arrest and detention of the vessel, MT. Ayodeji with IMO No. 9235701; MMSI: 636018839

Justice Bogoro made the above orders on June 19, 2024, while granting a motion Exparte filed and argued by Obinna Divine, lawyer to the plaintiffs in the suit numbered FHC/L/CS/1004/2024.

However, following a motion on Notice filed by Ikechukwu Ukadike of Queen Ukadike & Associates, Solicitors to the 3rd Defendant (MT AYODEJI), to discharge the EX-PARTE Order, the court graciously adjourned the case to the 3rd of October, 2024 for hearing.

The implication of this, is that the vessel, MT AYODEJI would continue to trade pending final adjudication of the matter in court.

In its motion challenging the suit and seeking to discharge the ex Parte order, dated 24th June 2024 to the Deputy Chief Registrar/Admiralty Marshall Substitute Federal High Court Ikoyi Lagos, the vessel Solicitors submits

“RE: MT AYODE.II — NOTIFICATION OF PENDING MOTION TO VACATE THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF HONOURABLE JUSTICE BOGORO MADE ON THE 19TH OF JUNE 2024 IN SUIT NO FHC/L/CS/1004/2024 BETWEEN FIRST DEEP WATER NIGERIA LIMITED — IN RECEIVERSHIP AND ANOR V. PETROLI ENERGY AND SUPPLY LIMUTED AND ORS

“We continue to act as solicitors to the 3d Defendant in this suit which is the ship MT AYODEIJI.

“We refer to our letter to you on this subject dated 21st June, 2024 a copy of which is attached for your ease of reference.

“The said 3rd Defendant ship has a caveat against arrest in force. A copy of the said caveat is attached.

“As indicated earlier, the Plaintiffs had obtained an EX-PARTE order against the 3d – Defendant directing the 3d Defendant to provide security within 24 hours for USD 100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Dollars) for alleged trespass to property and N10, 000,000,000.00 (Ten Billion Naira) as general damages failing which the Ship will be arrested.

“The said EX-PARTE order was served on us on the 20th of June 2024 and we promptly filed a motion on Notice to discharge it on the 21st of June 2024. Our motion, a copy of which is attached, is challenging the jurisdiction of the court as the subject matter of the suit brought before the court by the Plaintiffs is not an

Admiralty matter upon which an order for security or arrest of the vessel should be made as the action is a simple contract and alleged trespass to property.

“When the case came up today, we informed the Honourable court of our pending motion to discharge the EX-PARTE Order made on the 19th of June 2024 and the court graciously adjourned the case to the 3rd of October, 2024 for hearing.

“Given that the Supreme Court has held in a plethora of cases that execution can not be levied in respect of an EX-PARTE Order against which a motion to discharge
same is pending, we humbly implore you not to sign or issue any warrant of arrest against the 3rd Defendant ship so as not to prejudge and prejudice the outcome of our pending motion to discharge the said EX-PARTE order”

The Notice of Discontinuance was thereafter issued on 8th of July, 2024.

Recall that Justice Yelim Bogoro who presided over the court case on 19th June 2024, while making the above order, held “that the Admiralty Marshal to collect all the original papers of the Vessel, MT. Ayodeji (IMO No. 9235701; MMSI: 636018839) (3 Defendant), and operating under the flag of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) and the seamen books of its crew until the aforesaid vessel is lawfully released from arrest.

“That an order is granted authorizing the Admiralty Marshal, the Director-General, Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA), the Nigerian Navy (including the Flag Officer Commanding, Western Navai Command, the Flag Officer Commanding, Eastern Naval Command, the Flag Officer Commanding, Central Naval Command, of the Flag Officer Commanding) and/or the Nigeria Police Force (including the relevant Commissioner of Police, Nigeria Police Force and/or the Force Marine Officer, Nigeria Police Force) to move the Vessel, MT. Ayodeji (IMO No. 9235701; MMSI. 636018839) (3rd Defendant), and operating under the flag of the Federal Republic of Nigeria) to a safe berth or anchorage in the event that the Vessel, MT. Ayodeji, is arrested at an unsafe or unsecured location, as determined by the Admiralty Marshal, the Nigerian Navy, and/or the Nigeria Police Force, in order to efficiently maintain the Vessel, MT. Ayodeji under arrest.

“In the event relief (1) is not complied with within the specified time, the Caveator shall be served with the Writ. The Caveator shall also deposit the sum or provide security within 3 (three) days.”

However, the grounds upon which Queen Ukadike & Associates brought up the motion against the ex Parte order are as follows;

“1. The Court had no jurisdiction to grant the said prayers of the Plaintiffs

“2. The Plaintiffs cause of action is a simple contract and not an admiralty action under the relevant laws .

“3. The Plaintiffs/Respondents concealed and/or suppressed vital and material fact when they applied for the Ex-Parte motion which was subsequently granted on the 19” day of June 2024

“4. The 3rd Defendant vessel is not owned by the 1st and 2nd Defendants but an entirely different entity.

“5. There is not privity of contract between the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant vessel”

Also, in a written address in support of the motion date 21st June 2024, the Solicitors further argued the issues for determination in court thus;

“1.Whether the Plaintiff’s claim before this Honourable Court is an admiralty matter to warrant the arrest of the 3” Defendant ship.

“2. Whether this Honourable court has jurisdiction to have granted the order of 19th of June 2024

“In taking both issues together we submit as a preliminary point that this Honourable court is validly vested with the competence and powers to discharge and set aside its Ex-parte order made without jurisdiction.

“As has been shown by affidavit evidence in our affidavit in support of motion,
That the subject matter of the suit is founded on simple contract revolving around:

“a. Jetty Management Agreement between the 1” Plaintiff and the Receive Manager as clearly averred in paragraphs 14,15,16,17,18 and 19 of the Statement of claim.

“b. Lease Agreement of the said tank farm as per the Memorandum of Agreement between the Plaintiffs and the 2” Defendant as clearly averred in paragraphs 19,20,21,22,23,24,25,28 and 29 of the Statemen: of Claim

“c. A Through-Put Agreement between the 1st Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant as again clearly shown in paragraphs 25, 26, 227 and 28 of the Statement of Claim

“d. Alleged trespass to property as averred by the Plaintiffs themselves in paragraphs 32,33,35,36, and 37 of the Statement of Claim.

It is trite law that cases founded on simple contract does not fall within the admiralty jurisdiction of the court.

“SECTION 2 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act 1991 provides for specie of claims falling within the admiralty competence of this Honourable Court and certainly simple contracts is not one of them: neither is lease of property, jetty management agreement or alleged trespass to property.

“It is further settled by the Supreme court in a plethora of authorities that it is not in every action that a ship is involved that an admiralty will be invoked” it argued

The Solicitor has also disclosed that following the discontinuance of the suit, the 3rd Defendant, MT AYODEJI is now free of any pending lawsuit and is free to trade and do business around the world.