Supreme Court Faces Calls for Reversal in $64 Million Mineral Contract Dispute
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has been urged to revisit its ruling in a high-profile case involving the breach of an international commercial contract valued at over $64 million. The contract, which relates to the export of solid minerals such as Tin, Columbite, and Tantalite ores, has sparked concern among business leaders and civil society organizations alike.
The appeal for a review was made by the Empowerment for Unemployed Youth Initiative, Independent Public Service Accountability Watch, and Coalition of Civil Society Groups. Ambassador Stephen Eriba, the convener of the coalition, expressed concerns to the media, stating that failing to review the court’s decision could have dire consequences for Nigeria’s business climate, both domestically and internationally.
This case traces back to 2016, when the appellant, Owigs and Obigs, filed a lawsuit against a prominent Nigerian bank over the alleged cancellation of a solid minerals export contract. The company blamed the bank for not confirming letters of credit issued by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), which led to the termination of the agreement.
Among the claims presented by the appellant were demands for the payment of $38 million in lost profits from three foreign contracts, as well as N2 billion in damages for lost goodwill and future business opportunities. They also sought N1 billion in aggravated damages.
In 2018, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court dismissed the case, ruling that the bank was not negligent. However, the appellant appealed the decision, and in 2020, the Court of Appeal found the bank guilty of negligence and ordered the return of $4.5 million in penalty fees.
Despite this ruling, the appellant continued their legal battle, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court. In its judgment delivered on May 24, 2024, the Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, rejecting the claim for additional damages. Justice Tijjani Abubakar, who authored the ruling, stated that the appellant failed to sufficiently prove the loss of anticipated profits resulting from the contract termination, emphasizing that projections in a feasibility study could not serve as evidence of actual financial loss.
The firm, dissatisfied with this outcome, filed two separate letters to the Chief Justice of Nigeria, requesting a review of the judgment. They argue that the ruling contradicts the available evidence and harms Nigeria’s international business reputation. Eriba added that the decision could present Nigeria as an “unsafe and risky” destination for business, sending a negative signal to global investors.
The calls for a judicial review have intensified, with stakeholders warning that failure to address the situation may have far-reaching implications for the country’s economic future.
