Court Dismisses $19.6 Million Contract Dispute Against NNPC
Translated from English, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- An Abuja High Court dismissed a $19.6 million suit against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC) by Alternate Dimensions Ventures Limited.
- The court affirmed that written contracts cannot be expanded or modified through oral agreements or conduct.
- Alternate Dimensions Ventures claimed expanded scope and sought fees for services under alleged oral arrangements, but provided no evidence of written amendments.
An Abuja Federal Capital Territory High Court has thrown out a $19.6 million lawsuit filed by Alternate Dimensions Ventures Limited against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPC). The ruling reinforces the fundamental legal principle that written contracts are binding and cannot be altered or expanded through verbal discussions or the parties' subsequent actions.
written contracts cannot be expanded through oral agreements or conduct.
Alternate Dimensions Ventures had sought the substantial sum in professional fees, alleging that the scope of its Direct Sale, Direct Purchase (DSDP e-pro) contract with NNPC was broadened through oral agreements. The company, represented by Counsel Patrick Peter, argued it was entitled to the revised amount for services purportedly rendered under these expanded terms.
However, NNPC, through its lawyer Ituah Imhanze, contested the claim. The national oil company maintained that parties must adhere strictly to the explicit terms laid out in their written agreements. Crucially, NNPC argued that no written amendment existed to substantiate the alleged expansion of the contract's scope.
parties are bound strictly by the clear terms of their written agreement.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Hamza Muโazu concurred with NNPC's defense. The court found the contract's terms to be clear and unambiguous. Furthermore, Justice Muโazu noted that Alternate Dimensions Ventures failed to present any evidence supporting the existence of the alleged oral variations to the contract. Consequently, the court dismissed the suit, deeming it to be without merit and reaffirming that any modifications to a written contract must be formally documented.
no evidence was presented to support the alleged oral variation.
Originally published by ThisDay in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.