Ogona Anita
Fierce cross examination has continued in a Port Harcourt High Court in the N5.074bn claim brought by Macobarb International and its CEO, Shedrack Ogboru, against the NLNG.
The defence lead counsel, Prof Bayo Adarelegbe, continued his detailed cross examination with Ogboru in the witness box. The law professor and legal practitioner spent hours on the last day of the case (November 29, 2024) hammering on the terms of the contract to prove it to the claimants that Ogboru was not a party to the contract on his individual recognition.
On the resumed date, he shifted questioning to the provision for the contractor to produce a ‘performance bond’ within two weeks of the take-off of the contract. Ogboru tried to show that the dispute that led to the termination was not from submission of performance bond, but Aderelegbe pinned Ogboru to a ‘yes or no’ answer situation until he (Ogboru) admitted he did not submit it at any point in time. Ogboru rather told the court that both parties continued to transact on the contract despite the absence of the bond as he said bills and vouchers were submitted and vetted and some paid for without reliance on the performance bond.
The claimant’s counsel, A.J Okanje, intervened many times to defend his counsel from what he considered the defence counsel’s hostile or fierce questioning. This made the judge, Justice Chinwendu Nwogu, to step in once in a while to resolve matters and moderate the cross examination.
The case was adjourned to January 17 and 24, 2025, for continuation of cross examination.
The claimant had submitted a trove of documents and called one witness, all to show how the NLNG may have breached terms of the contract and allegedly failed to fully pay for services rendered or ‘work done’, and how the contract had stand-down provisions which should be addressed by the parties, else the court.
Crux of the matter:
Macobarb International Limited, an indigenous contractor had dragged the NLNG to court claiming over N1Bn (now amended to N5.074Bn) for alleged breaches to a contract (B130142PPI, Access Control) in the NLNG plant area with three years duration.
The suit said the contract provided that Macobarb be paid bit by bit progressively based on the value of verified work done.
Macobarb in its claims said the contract also forbade delay of any kind in the project and provided for penalty on whoever caused the delay. It also provided for alert system should anything want to cause a delay.
Macobarb said it activated the alert clauses when payment delays began to happen but that nothing was done to rectify the delays until the contract was terminated.
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings