Port Harcourt Court Sets July 16 for Ruling in ₦5.74bn NLNG Contract Dispute

A High Court in Port Harcourt has scheduled July 16, 2025, to deliver judgment in a ₦5.74 billion contract dispute between Macobarb International Limited and Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas Limited (NLNG). The case, listed as PHC/2013/CS/2022, is being heard by Justice Chinwendu Nwogu.

The dispute centers on allegations by Macobarb that NLNG breached a contract agreement, leading to substantial financial losses. During the court session on June 24, both parties adopted their final written addresses, with each urging the court to rule in their favor.

Macobarb’s lead counsel, Benefit Vilokpo, argued that the contract was wrongfully terminated via a letter dated November 27, 2015. He claimed the letter was invalid because it was issued by an individual (Emeka Ohiri) who was not formally recognized within the contract. Instead, the designated contract holder, Dweller Francis, never issued any termination notice.

Vilokpo further emphasized that provisions in the contract allowed for “standby payments,” and maintained that NLNG failed to close out the contract properly. He cited a “Project Close-Out Meeting” held on February 19, 2016—well after the supposed termination—as evidence the contract remained active. During this meeting, NLNG reportedly acknowledged outstanding material costs and pending demobilization payments.

Additionally, Macobarb pointed to NLNG’s acknowledgment of receiving materials, including a 20ft container, and insisted the company fulfilled its obligations.

In defense, NLNG’s lead counsel, Prof. Bayo Aderelegbe, contested the validity of Macobarb’s claims. He questioned whether the second claimant was legally entitled to sue and defended the contract’s termination as proper and carried out by an authorized party.

He also argued that the claimed ₦5.74 billion exceeded the original lump sum specified in the agreement, and that Macobarb’s claims lacked financial basis.

Central to the dispute is the performance bond clause. NLNG claims the contractor failed to submit the bond within 14 days, which it said justified the termination. Macobarb countered that the contract did not specify who was responsible for submitting the bond and argued that both parties were in mutual default—thus making the deviation non-punishable.

Moreover, Macobarb noted that NLNG only requested the performance bond 16 months into the project, which had already progressed significantly—further undermining the basis for termination.

The claimant’s counsel also reminded the court that NLNG did not refute the figures provided by their forensic accountant, nor did it present alternative figures.

Judge Nwogu warned counsel against introducing new legal authorities not included in their written briefs during oral submissions, stating they would not be considered.

The judgment will determine whether NLNG owes the ₦5.74bn claimed, whether the contract was lawfully terminated, and whether the performance bond issue holds legal weight in the termination.