The federal government has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja against the decision of Justice Adamu Bello of the Federal High Court nullifying the deregulation of the downstream sector of the oil industry.

The court had in its judgment in the case: Bamidele Aturu vs Minister of Petroleum Resources, delivered on March 19, 2013, nullified the deregulation of the downstream sector of the oil industry.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the federal government is praying the court to set aside the judgment of the lower court and dismiss the respondent’s matter in its entirety or strike it out on the grounds that the respondent lacked the competence (locus standi) to institute the suit.

In a nine-page notice of appeal dated April 10, 2013 and filed by seven lawyers led by Dr. Fabian Ajogwu (SAN) and Mrs. A. O. Mbamali, the federal government predicated its appeal on five grounds.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to consider and pronounce on all the issues properly submitted before it and that failure to do so amount to a denial of fair hearing.

It argued that the court erred in law on the question of the locus standi of the respondent when it held that it was clear that under both the narrow interpretation of locus standi and the broader interpretation, the plaintiff was qualified to be accorded locus standi to sue in this matter.

The federal government equally contended that the learned trial judge misdirected himself when he held that the combined reading of sections 4 and 6 of the Price Control Act and the Petroleum Act leave no one in doubt that the control of and regulation of prices of petroleum products, among others, is a legal duty imposed on the government of the federation.

The appellant averred that the court erred when it noted that by enacting the Price Control Act and the Petroleum Act, the federal government had made the economic objective in section 16(1)(b) of the Constitution in Chapter II justifiable.

Finally it also disclosed that the court erred in law when it summarily granted the relief in the respondent’s originating summons.

The appellant also filed a motion before the trial court praying for an order staying the execution of the judgment of the court pending the determination of the appeal against the judgment.

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal or the motion for stay of execution.

Source: Thisday (By Davidson Irekpen )