Overview
On Friday, 22 May 2026, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, dismissed a suit brought by Alternate Dimensions Ventures Limited against the ๐ก๐ถ๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ก๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐ฃ๐ฒ๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ๐๐บ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฝ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ, in which the Claimant sought the sum of $19,600,000 (Nineteen Million, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars) as professional fees allegedly arising from an alleged breach of a Direct Sale, Direct Purchase (DSDP e-pro) contract.
On the Court papers made available to us, Alternate Dimensions Ventures Ltd, represented by its counsel Patrick Peter, had alleged that, in the course of executing the DSDP e-pro project contract it entered into with the NNPCL, the scope of the contract was expanded, and that it was entitled to the revised sum of $19,600,000, (Nineteen Million, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars) as the professional fees and compensation for the services rendered under the purported expanded scope. NNPCL, through its Counsel, Ituah Imhanze, MCIArb(UK), FCArb of KENNA, argued that parties are bound strictly by the terms of the contract they willingly entered into, especially where such contract is reduced into writing.
He further argued that, where the terms of contract between parties are clear and unambiguous, the court in resolving the dispute between the parties, ought not to look outside the express terms of the contract, rather the court must confine itself to the express terms under the contract. Ituah further argued that in the absence of written document evidencing that the parties agreed to expand the scope of the contract, the Claimant's claim was bound to fail in its entirety. In its judgment delivered on May 22, 2026, the Honourable Justice Hamza Muโazu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, upheld the Defendantโs argument as canvassed by its Counsel and held that the contract between the parties was clear and unambiguous and there was nothing before the Court to prove that the scope of the same was expanded by the parties.
The court further held that NNPCL had complied strictly with all the terms and was not in breach of the DSDP contract. The Court, in dismissing the suit for lacking in merit, reaffirmed the established principle of sanctity of contract, to the effect that the scope of a written contract cannot be expanded or deemed amended by implication, conduct, or oral agreement, and that any amendment must be express and supported by clear and unequivocal evidence. The decision successfully saves NNPCL from substantial financial liability arising from the Claimantโs claims.
