The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja has dismissed a $19.6m suit filed against the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited by Alternate Dimensions Ventures Ltd over alleged professional fees arising from a Direct Sale, Direct Purchase contract.
- +Court dismisses $19.6m suit against NNPC
In a ruling delivered on May 22, 2026, Justice Hamza Mu’azu held that the claimant failed to establish that the scope of the contract was expanded beyond the terms contained in the written agreement between the parties.
In a ruling delivered on May 22, 2026, Justice Hamza Mu’azu held that the claimant failed to establish that the scope of the contract was expanded beyond the terms contained in the written agreement between the parties.
Alternate Dimensions Ventures Ltd, through its counsel, Patrick Peter, had argued that the contract was orally modified and that the company was therefore entitled to $19.6m for services allegedly rendered under the revised arrangement.
However, counsel to NNPCL, Ituah Imhanze of KENNA LP, urged the court to dismiss the suit, insisting that parties are strictly bound by the express terms of their written agreement except where amendments are formally documented.
Imhanze argued that “without any written amendment or variation to the contract, the claimant’s case is legally unsustainable”.
Delivering the ruling, Justice Mu’azu agreed with the defence and reaffirmed the principle that a written contract cannot be expanded through oral agreements, assumptions or conduct not expressly captured in the contractual documents.
“The contract between the parties is clear and unambiguous,” the judge held, adding that “no credible evidence was placed before the court to establish any expansion of the contractual scope as alleged by the claimant.”
The court further found that NNPCL complied with its obligations under the agreement and committed no breach capable of giving rise to the claim for additional professional fees.
Justice Mu’azu subsequently dismissed the suit for lacking merit.
The judge held that any alteration to a written agreement must be “express, unequivocal and properly documented,” noting that courts cannot import terms not agreed to by parties.
The ruling also shields NNPCL from the $19.6m liability claim and can serve as a precedent in similar contractual disputes involving alleged oral variations of written agreements.
