The Supreme Court has dismissed Eni and Vitol’s application for special leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s affirmation of the High Court’s ruling to deposit 30 per cent of the revenue from the sale of crude oil from the Sankofa field into an interest-bearing account.
The Court did not agree with the reasons adduced by Eni and Vitol as they failed, in the estimation of the court, to state any special circumstances or reasons for leave to appeal.
In effect, by December 2021, Eni and Vitol have no option but to comply with the High Court ruling and retrospectively pay the 30 per cent from June 25, 2021 into the bank account.
This in monetary terms amounts to an estimated $240million for the period in question.
The ruling comes on the heels of yet another decision by a High Court on October 26 that denied Eni’s application for a review of the government’s April 2020 directive on the unitisation of the Sankofa and Afinafields.
In that ruling, the trial judge was emphatic that the Minister of Energy acted within the Petroleum Law in issuing the directive, and, therefore, did no wrong in going according to what the law stipulates.
Beyond the courts in Ghana, Eni is before an International Court of Arbitration seeking almost the same reliefs so far rejected by the Ghanaian courts. This raises questions about how their case against the government will fare, given that Courts of Arbitration rarely overturn national laws and regulations by which parties have agreed to abide.
In July this year, a three-member Court of Appeal rejected a similar request by the two companies, Eni and Vitol, to stay execution of the order to make the payments and affirmed the decision of the High Court saying ‘the order by the trial court ought not for the time being be disturbed pending the determination of the substantive appeal.
The court noted that sufficient case had not been made by the applicants, Eni and Vitol, to warrant the grant of the applications.
It said ‘we have read and re-read the ruling of the learned trial judge and in particular, examined the reasoning behind the ruling she gave. We have come to appreciate the matters the trial judge took into consideration in arriving at the decision’.
The Commercial High Court had on June 25 ordered Eni and Vitol Upstream Limited to set aside 30 per cent of oil proceeds from the Sankofa Field’s production in an escrow account to be agreed by the feuding parties, pending the final determination of an application filed by Springfield E&P.
The Supreme Court having pronounced on the matter, the Appellants’ only remaining option, according to legal experts, is to appeal to the same court for review of its decision, a rarity and a route which some advise against.
Springfield filed the suit following Eni’s refusal to comply with directives by Ghana’s Ministry of Energy for the parties to unitise the Afina and the Sankofa Fields operated by Springfield and Eni respectively.
The Minister is said to have imposed the directive in April 2020, to optimise the benefits because the data showed that the two fields were one and same, but this has not come to fruition based on different positions taken by the parties.
Among the reliefs sought by Springfield was an order directed at the defendants to comply with the directive issued in the letter of April 9,2020 and enter into an agreement forthwith with Plaintiff to produce and develop the accumulation of petroleum in the Sankofa and Afina Fields as a single unit.
BY TIMES REPORTER
