The Supreme Court has resolved in favour of the Rivers State government the ownership of the disputed 17 oil wells against the Imo State government.
In a judgement prepared by Justice Ellen Ogunwumiju but delivered by justice Emmanuel Agim, the apex court dismissed the argument put forward by Imo against the appeal.
The oil Wells located in the territories of Rivers and Imo States have been a subject of litigation at the apex court which served as a court of first instance with seven Justices in the panel.
According to Justice Agim, reliefs one, three, four, five, and six sought by the Rivers State government were granted by the court.
The court however, refused to grant reliefs Two, Seven, and 10.
Among the reliefs granted by the apex Court in favour of Rivers are that the boundary between Rivers and Imo as delineated in Nigeria administrative map 10th edition, 11th, 12th edition and other maps bearing similar delineation are inaccurate, incorrect, and do not represent the legitimate and lawful boundaries between Rivers and Imo state.
The court also agreed that the correct instrument, maps, and documents relied on in determining the boundary, were those used by the Rivers State government in delineating the boundary line between both states.
It granted the relief that Rivers map showing boundary line between the state and Imo State represents the correct boundary between both states.
The apex court, however, refused the sum of N500,000 as a cost for the prosecution of the suit instituted by the Rivers State government.
It also refused an order directing the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to calculate and refund all revenue that have been wrongly denied Rivers State or wrongly paid to Imo State.
At the last adjourned date of February 7 when the parties adopted their final brief of argument, the AGF had prayed the court to dismiss the matter and direct Rivers State to go and file a suit before the Federal High Court.
In the grounds of argument, the AGF and Imo State said witnesses of the disputed area ought to be called to give evidence before the suit could be amicably resolved.
They demanded that the intervention of the National Boundary Commission would also be required to give evidence at the Federal High Court before any conclusion could be drawn.
But counsel to the Rivers State government, Joseph Daudu, opposed the demand of the AGF and Imo State and asked the apex court to dismiss it.
He argued that documentary evidence placed before the court were enough for the Supreme Court to resolve all issues in dispute in relation to the oil wells.
AGF and Imo state who are the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively in the suit had On February 7 when they adopted their final processes asked the court to dismiss the suit and order Rivers to file it at the Federal High Court because it is a revenue matter.
Their grounds are that before the suit can be amicably resolved, witnesses, especially residents of the disputed areas needed to be called to give oral evidence on which side they belonged between Imo and Rivers.
The two defendants further demanded that the intervention of the National Boundary Commission would also be required to give evidence at the Federal High Court before an appreciable conclusion can be drawn.
The requests were however turned down by the court.
| ReplyForward |