Firm Demands $1.75m, N50m for Alleged Contract Breach

Wale Igbintade

A financial advisory and consulting firm, Hydrocarbon Advisors Limited, has asked the Lagos State High Court to compel Accugas Limited (a subsidiary of Savannah energy Petroleum limited) to pay it $1.75million and N50million for alleged breach of agreement for professional services and as general damage.

Hydrocarbon Advisors is the sole claimant in the case, while Accugas, a gas development and processing company, is the defendant against whom the reliefs are sought. FBN Capital is a nominal party and was the facility agent.

The claimant, through its counsel, Seni Adio (SAN), filed the November 23 originating summons praying the court to determine four issues.

They include whether Accugas breached an October 26, 2017, agreement for professional services between Hydrocarbon Advisors and the defendants, together with the change order of November 23, 2018, and e-mail of September 10, 2018, (collectively, the ‘agreement’) by failing to pay the claimant $1million professional fees plus 7.5 percent value added tax (VAT).

Whether Accugas’ request proscribing Hydrocarbon Advisors from providing professional services to a consortium of financial institutions constitutes an unlawful restraint on trade under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018 and the Local Content Act 2010 and is, therefore, unlawful under Nigerian Law.

Apart from the $1.75million and N50million for breach of agreement for professional services and as general damages, Hydrocarbon Advisors prayed the court to resolve the issues in its favour, and grant it four other orders and reliefs.

The claimant is seeking an order granting the post-judgment interest on its professional fees and the damage awarded by the court until the judgment sum is fully paid.

“A declaratory order that the Accugas’ request proscribing Hydrocarbon Advisors from providing professional services to a consortium of financial institutions constitutes an unlawful restraint on trade under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act 2018, and violates the Local Content Act 2010, and is unlawful,” it said.

The claimants supported their claim with an affidavit in support of the originating summons sworn by an investment banker, Hakeem Adedeji.

The deponent averred that on or about October 26, 2017, the first defendant and the second defendant retained the professional expertise of the claimant for the restructuring of certain complex loan facilities in the sum of $385 million granted by a syndicate of local and international financial institutions to the first defendant (the ‘Initial Mandate’).

According to him, “The Claimant provided the required services as contained in the Initial Mandate. Notably, the Initial Mandate provided that the first defendant ‘will be responsible for payment of fees and other charges incurred in accordance with the engagement letter.’

“Based on the claimant’s performance under the Initial Mandate, the first and second defendants decided to expand the claimant’s scope of services by activating the ‘change order process’ contained in the Initial Mandate.”

He averred, among others, that the claimant performed the additional services pursuant to the Change Order, including leading the swap negotiations among the first defendant, Savannah, and Frontier Oil Limited, with the second defendant, playing the role of facility agent, thus culminating in a successful gas-for-oil swap.

The deponent averred that the professional services that the claimant provided “required ingenuity, were novel, and prevented the total collapse with extensive repercussions concerning an almost $1billion corporate acquisition transaction by Savannah (including the $400million facility owed to the syndicate of local and international banks).”