SPRINGFIELD EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION LTD v ENI GHANA EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION LIMITED & ANOR

Ackaah-Boafo, JA

i. Overview:

[1] This appeal is from the ruling of the High Court, Accra, the Commercial Division which declined to strike out the Statement of Claim and dismissing the suit against the 2nd Defendant, (Vitol Upstream Ghana Limited) on the grounds that the Plaintiff (Springfield Exploration and Production Limited) pleadings disclose no reasonable cause of action and is otherwise an abuse of process of the court. The basis of the appeal is that the judge below was wrong on all counts. Before dealing with the arguments advanced for and against the appeal, let us look at the background of the case.

[2] In the proceedings at the High Court, the Plaintiff pleaded among other things that it acquired rights to explore, develop and produce petroleum in accordance with terms of an agreement it entered into with the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation [GNPC] sometime in 2016 over a contract area known as West Cape Three Points Block 2 (WCTP2). It also pleaded that the Defendants (Appellant herein and the 1st Defendant) were granted rights of exploration, development and production over a contract area known as Offshore Cape Three Points (OCTP) with a combined interest of 79.8%, being 44.44% and 35.36%. The Plaintiff further pleaded that Defendants contract area of the OCTP included the currently producing Sankofa East Oil Field and Sankofa Main Gas Field genera lly referred to as 'Sankofa Production Area'.

[3] The Plaintiff further pleaded that its contract area of WCTP-2 and the Defendants ' OCTP share a common boundary. The Plaintiff contended that sometime in the early part of 2018, it came to its attention that the accumulation of petroleum in the Defendants ' Sankofa Cenomanian Reservoir extends beyond its contract area into the Plaintiff's contract area of WCTP2 where petroleum within the Plaintiff's contract is accumulated. According to the Plaintiff, as a result of the said accumulation, any exploration and production activities carried out in Defendants Sankofa production area automatically '

affected the petroleum accumulation in the Plaintiff's contract area of the WCTP -2 and vice versa.

[4] The Plaintiff further pleaded that to confirm the said information, it engaged the services of an independent expert to determine whether the Defendants Sankofa ' Cenomanian Reservoir indeed extended into its contract area. According to the Plaintiff, the independent expert confirmed its findings. The Plaintiff further pleaded that it