By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

A coalition of Civil Society Organizations, CSOs, in the country, on Wednesday, urged the Supreme Court to revisit its judgement on the dispute surrounding an international commercial contract for the export of solid minerals like Tin, Columbite and Tantalite ores, valued at $64,107,180.00.

The group, led by Independent Public Service Accountability Watch, maintained that the judgement which the apex court delivered on May 24, last year, was capable of impacting negatively on the business community, both within and outside the country, if not urgently reviewed.

Speaking with newsmen in Abuja, the CSOs, through their convener, Ambassador Stephen Eriba, noted that the case involved a contract failure between an indigenous export-based company, Owigs & Obigs and a new generation bank in the country.

According to him, the company had in 2016, instituted an action before a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja, following the cancellation of its solid mineral contract Nos: JY00NL-001/KTTA 140415, which the firm blamed on the failure/ neglect of the bank to confirm letters of credit its foreign patners issued to it, through the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, ICBC.

The dissatisfied company, among other reliefs it sought against the bank, prayed the court for an order, directing the payment of $38million, “being the loss of profit on three foreign contracts which were lost due to the defendant’s unilateral termination of the contract secured by the plaintiff.”

It equally prayed for the sum of N2billion as damages for the loss of goodwill and further trading opportunities before the Chinese Chambers of Commerce/ International Chambers of Commerce of Asia and local supplies of solid minerals, as well as sundry/ collateral expenses incurred as a result of the unilateral termination of the contract by the defendant.

More so, the company requested to be paid the sum of N1bn as aggravated damages.

However, in the judgement it delivered on July 5, 2018, the FCT High Court held that the bank was not negligent and therefore not liable to pay damages to the plaintiff, even as it dismissed the suit.

Not satisfied with the verdict, the firm took the matter before the Court of Appeal in Abuja, where judgement was entered in its favour.

In its own judgement, the appellate court found the bank guilty of negligence and ordered it to refund the penalty fees of $4,486 that was slammed on the appellate as a result of the botched contract.

The appellate court held that it was satisfied that the contract failed owing to the inability of the bank to promptly respond and act on series of requests that were made by the appellate.

Though the appellate court decided the matter in favour of the appellant, however, it declined to award damages as it was prayed to do.

Consequently, the company lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court, insisting that the appellate court was wrong when it refused to award damages to it after its case was upheld.

Delivering judgement on the matter, the apex court held that it found no reason to disturb the findings of the appellate court on the issue of damages.

In the lead judgement that was delivered by Justice Tijjani Abubakar, the Supreme Court held that the appellant failed to adduce any evidence to establish its claim of loss of profit as a result of the termination of the contract.

“In a claim for anticipated profit, the onus is on the plaintiff to establish by evidence the anticipated profit, and that the projection in a feasibility study is not proof of such anticipated profit.

“Assuming exhibits PW1P qualifies as feasibility report, it is not by itself evidence of loss of anticipated profit incurred by the appellant,” the apex court held.

While urging the apex court to revisit the case, the CSOs argued that awarding damages to the appellant would not only meet the justice of the matter, but also help to build the confidence of foreign investors in the country’s  judicial process.

“It is an elementary position of the law that wherever there is a wrong, there must be a remedy. Having established that there was a wrong in this matter, we are praying the Supreme Court, being the ultimate and final court of the land, to take a second look at this case,” the group stated.

Besides, the CSOs noted that the Managing Director of the appellant, Mr Emeka Okorie, had in two separate letters dated December 10, 2024 and January 9, 2025, drawn the attention of the Chief Justice of Nigeria to the matter.

“We believe that the judgement deserved a second look as not doing so will present the country and its financial institutions as unsafe and risky for businesses,” the group added.