Court of Appeal has overturned N5bn damages awarded against NNPCL in Ararume case.
NewsOnline Nigeria reports that the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) says it has won its appeal against a judgment that awarded ₦5 billion in damages to former federal lawmaker, Senator Ifeanyi Ararume.
In a statement on Tuesday via X (formerly Twitter), NNPCL said the August 8, 2025 decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, overturned the April 2023 ruling of the Federal High Court which nullified Ararume’s removal as non-executive chairman of its board.
READ ALSO: Trump Approves $346m Sale of Precision Ammunition, Rockets to Nigeria
The lower court, presided over by Justice Inyang Ekwo, had ruled that the President lacked the power to remove a non-executive chairman without following the company’s statutes. It also ordered Ararume’s reinstatement, voided all board decisions made in his absence, and awarded him damages for reputational harm.
The Presidency, while stating its respect for the rule of law, appealed in June 2023, arguing that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction, that Ararume’s suit was statute-barred, and that the damages awarded were excessive.
The Court of Appeal upheld NNPCL’s position, agreeing that the earlier judgment was delivered in error and noting that the claim had indeed expired under the statute of limitations.
NNPCL said the verdict “secures governance stability, sets a corporate governance precedent in Nigerian law, and safeguards the validity of board resolutions critical to the oil and gas industry.”
Recall that Senator Ararume was appointed as NNPCL non-executive chairman in September 2021 by then-President Muhammadu Buhari after the enactment of the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA). However, on January 17, 2022, before he could assume office Buhari replaced him with Margaret Chuba-Okadigbo without an official explanation.
Ararume sued in September 2022, seeking reinstatement, ₦100 billion in damages, and the nullification of all board decisions made during his exclusion. He argued that his removal violated the PIA and due process.
