Follow Us on Google
By Izunna Nkwachukwu
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, has backed Halkin Exploration and Production Limited (Halkin E&P) in its contractual dispute with Eunisell Limited, declaring a provision imposing a 177 per cent annual default fee null and void and invalidating all invoices and assessments issued under the disputed clause.
In a judgment delivered on October 22, 2026, Justice Suleiman Belgore held that Clause 10.4 of the service agreement between the two companies, dated January 20, 2022, was unenforceable, handing Halkin E&P a significant legal victory in its challenge to the disputed charges.
The clause required Halkin E&P to pay a late-payment charge of 0.5 per cent per day on outstanding payments, translating to approximately 177 per cent annually on a compound-interest basis.
The provision reportedly formed the basis of Eunisell’s claims for accumulated default charges amounting to millions of dollars, with the total allegedly exceeding 10 times the underlying debt.
In its ruling, the court declared: “Clause 10.4 of the Service Agreement between Halkin Exploration and Production Limited and Eunisell Limited dated 20th January 2022, which imposes an annual default fee of 177% (equivalent of 0.5% per day), is null, void, and of no legal effect whatsoever.”
The court further set aside and invalidated all late-payment and default invoices, bills and assessments issued by Eunisell against Halkin E&P on the basis of the disputed clause.
The judgment stated that the invoices and assessments predicated on Clause 10.4 were to be “set aside, quashing, nullifying and invalidating”, removing the contractual basis for the disputed default charges.
Reacting to the decision, counsel to Halkin E&P, Chikaosulu Ojukwu, SAN, described the ruling as a victory for the rule of law, saying it vindicated his client’s consistent position that the contractual provision was contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable.
“This decision is a victory for the rule of law and vindicates the consistent position maintained by our client, Halkin E&P, that the impugned clause in the agreement was contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable,” Ojukwu said.
The senior lawyer also alleged that Eunisell had sought to use the disputed provision to secure an unjustified financial windfall from Halkin E&P.
Beyond the dispute over the default charges, Ojukwu raised allegations concerning Eunisell’s withdrawal from an oil well, claiming that the company left the site in the middle of the night without notice and caused damage to the wellhead.
According to the lawyer, Halkin E&P intends to pursue a $50 million claim against Eunisell through the appropriate legal proceedings over the alleged conduct and resulting damage.
“Our client will pursue a US$50 million claim against Eunisell Limited through the appropriate legal proceedings. This is a classical case of get-rich-quick,” he said.
The proposed claim signals the possibility of further legal proceedings between the companies, extending the dispute beyond the contested default-fee provision to allegations concerning oilfield operations and damage to infrastructure.
However, the allegations regarding the oil well and the proposed $50 million claim were presented by Halkin E&P’s counsel and remain subject to the appropriate legal process.
The court’s decision specifically addressed the enforceability of Clause 10.4 and the invoices and assessments issued under it.
For Halkin E&P, the judgment represents a significant outcome in its challenge to the disputed financial demands, with the court declaring the 177 per cent annual default-fee provision null and void and invalidating the charges imposed on that basis.
