The Supreme Court has granted leave to Global Gas and Refining Limited to raise “fresh issues” in its amended appeal in its long-running Gas Processing Agreement (GPA) case against Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited.
A five-man panel of the apex court, led by Justice Inyang Okoro, gave the ruling on May 22, 2026, according to a certified true copy of the lead ruling seen by Nairametrics.
Recall that Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, had avoided colliding with the outcome of the pending Supreme Court judgment in the Global Gas case.
Global Gas had, among other things, sought an order from the trial court restraining the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC) from “approving, authorizing, consenting to, or otherwise granting permission for the $1.3 billion sale/divestment of the assets of the 1st Respondent (SPDC) to Renaissance Consortium,” citing its alleged unresolved wet gas dispute.
Following Global Gas’ appointment of Kanu Agabi, SAN, as lead counsel in its appeal at the apex court, the company’s new counsel applied to amend its processes in the interest of justice.
Aside from amending its appeal and associated processes, Global Gas sought an order granting leave to the appellant/applicant to raise and argue a new/fresh issue on appeal before the Supreme Court, namely, the invocation of the inherent jurisdiction/powers of the Supreme Court under Section 6(6)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in order to finally and conclusively resolve/determine the fundamental dispute between the parties in the interest of justice.
Shell’s legal team, led by Tonye Krukrubo, SAN, opposed the bid to amend the appeal, arguing that granting the application would “change the nature of the appeal” and overreach Shell.
Reading the lead ruling on the issue of prejudice, Justice Adamu Jauro stated that Shell had not demonstrated any prejudice that could not be compensated by costs or a consequential amendment to its own brief.
The judge held that the interest of justice requires that parties be heard on all relevant issues, particularly where the dispute has been ongoing for over a decade and the amendments are aimed at facilitating a comprehensive resolution.
The judge noted that Shell had argued that the proposed amendments by Global Gas sought to uphold the minority award of the tribunal, which, according to Shell, was not sought below, thereby depriving the apex court of jurisdiction to grant such relief.
The judge held that the amendments sought would not change the nature of the appeal, as the appeal remained a challenge to the judgment of the lower court, which set aside the trial court’s decision on the arbitral award.
“
The additional grounds and the fresh issue simply sought to expand the legal basis for the appellant’s complaints and to invite this court to consider the full implications of the protracted arbitration process, invoking its constitutional powers to do substantial justice,
” the judge ruled, adding that the addition of the new grounds did not convert the appeal into a different case.
Consequently, the apex court found that the amendments by Global Gas were sought in good faith, following a change in its legal team and a re-evaluation of the case.
According to the judge, the amendments were aimed at presenting a complete picture of the applicant’s grievances, particularly concerning the failure of the courts below to address the fundamental issues arising from the arbitration and the need for the apex court to exercise its inherent powers to finally resolve the dispute.
The judge deemed the amended notice of appeal, which had already been filed separately and served on Shell, as properly filed and served by Global Gas, while granting the remaining reliefs.
The judge ruled that the application was meritorious.
In 2020, a Lagos High Court set aside the arbitral majority tribunal award, which dismissed Global Gas and Refining Limited’s claim against Shell for breach of contract over the supply of gas, ThisDay reports.
The trial judge underscored the fundamental importance of full disclosure in international commercial arbitration.
The court upheld Global Gas’ argument that the failure and neglect of the President of the Arbitral Tribunal, Oba Nsugbe, QC, SAN, to disclose his earlier involvement in a matter in which SPDC was a party amounted to gross misconduct.
The court declared that the award delivered by the majority of the Arbitral Tribunal ought to and must be set aside.
In 2024, the
Executive Chairman of Global Gas, Mr. Ken Yellowe, stated before the Abuja trial court
that his company had instituted arbitral proceedings against Shell, alleging that it failed to supply wet gas in line with the terms of the Gas Processing Agreement dated March 15, 2002.
Yellowe, through his lawyer, Patrick Ikweato, SAN, stated that unless the court granted an order temporarily safeguarding the “assets” in dispute from being sold, its 2002 business deal with Shell could be jeopardised.
The applicant further submitted that the dispute was already before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, but that NUPRC was not a party before the apex court, hence the need for the trial court to restrain the statutory agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria.
SPDC’s Legal Counsel, Global Litigation (Sub-Saharan Africa), Mr. Kingsley Osuh, had informed the Abuja court that the dispute between his company and Global Gas was already before the Supreme Court for final determination.
He added that the transaction with Renaissance was not an asset sale but a share sale transaction, whereby SPDC’s shareholder agreed to sell its shares in SPDC to a company called Renaissance.
In 2021, Shell announced its intention to divest its Nigerian onshore assets due to the incompatibility of its long-term energy transition strategy with operational challenges in Nigeria, including theft and oil spills.
With the inauguration of President Bola Tinubu in May 2023, advisers recommended completing outstanding divestments by international oil producers to boost petroleum output.
Subsequently,
NUPRC established a divestment framework
to oversee applications for ministerial consent in the SPDC divestment process.
The Renaissance Consortium later announced a landmark agreement with Shell International PLC to acquire its entire shareholding in SPDC.
NUPRC confirmed at the time that SPDC had submitted documents for review and that they were undergoing due diligence.
However, on September 11, 2024, NUPRC’s Head of Public Affairs, Mrs. Olaide Shonola, denied reports that the Commission had accepted Shell International’s $1.3 billion bid to sell its onshore assets to Renaissance.
In October 2024, NUPRC reportedly rejected the proposed sale, citing Renaissance’s lack of qualification to manage the assets, according to Reuters.
But on March 13, 2025, Shell announced the completion of the sale of SPDC to Renaissance, stating that the completion followed approvals from the Federal Government of Nigeria.
