Traveling within Nigeria has turned into a significant hurdle due to several issues. The governing party, All Progressives Congress (APC), pledged in their 2015 manifesto to construct at least five thousand kilometers of long-lasting highways across the country. However, ten years down the line, crucial Nigerian roads remain dilapidated. Recently, twenty-two athletes tragically died en route to Kano after attending the 22nd National Sports Festival in Ogun State—a recurring incident on numerous national thoroughfares. Furthermore, even those willing to brave road trips face considerable risks from highway robbers, criminals, and kidnappers; countless individuals fall victim to abduction, theft, and murder each year. To compound matters, law enforcement officials stationed strategically along these hazardous stretches often extort money from travelers, leading to substantial hold-ups and irritation among drivers, commuters, and all who use the roads—thus extending journey times significantly. Given these circumstances, flying seems increasingly appealing for many Nigerians. Despite high ticket prices, frequent delays, and occasional cancellations, flights tend to be well-occupied during peak periods. Consequently, my intrigue was piqued upon reading about the legal dispute between the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) and Bi-Courtney Limited regarding construction and management rights over the proposed Murtala Muhammed Airport 2 (MMA2).
As documented in (2025) 7 NWLR (Pt.1989) 365, the Federal Government of Nigeria awarded a contract to Bi-Courtney, referred to here as the first respondent, with the aim of rebuilding the burnt-down Murtala Muhammed Airport domestic terminal 2 (MMA2), located in Ikeja, Lagos, under a Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) arrangement. According to the terms laid out in an accord signed on April 24, 2003—whereby the Nigerian government, represented through the Honorable Minister of Aviation, acted as grantor alongside FAAN; whereas Bi-Courtney and Stabilini Visinoni Limited were designated as concessionaires—the responsibility fell upon the first respondent to fund, construct, and run MMA2 over a span of thirty-six years starting from May 7, 2007. Specifically, clause 2.2(a) within this agreement stated:
(a) Except as specifically outlined in Articles 17.4 and 20.2, the concession awarded to the concessionaire under this agreement is exclusive. The Grantor will make sure that no portion of the concession is granted to another party unless the concessionaire has breached any of its duties specified in this agreement, which would entitle the Grantor to terminate according to Article 17, or if the concessionaire violates Nigerian laws concerning this concession.
The Grantor ensures that it will neither construct any additional domestic terminals within Lagos State nor substantially upgrade any current ones during the concession term, as this could compete with the concessionaire’s operations under the same fare structure. However, should passenger volume increase over the course of the concession period and require expanding facilities, the concessionaire has priority rights for such expansions. Additionally, if the Grantor decides to develop a new domestic terminal in Lagos State, the concessionaire retains the initial option to consider taking part in its development.
The Grantor additionally ensures that all planned domestic flights entering and exiting FAAN’s Airport in Lagos State will operate from the terminal throughout the concession period.
Furthermore, according to clause 3.2 (c) of the concession agreement, it states that:
The grantor here states and ensures that –
The Concession Rights provided in this agreement are valid, and neither this document nor any Relevant Authority has granted (or is required to grant) anyone any rights or privileges that contradict, limit, or interfere with the Concessionaire’s use and enjoyment of the Concession Rights.
Despite the terms of the agreement, the Nigerian federal government permitted domestic flights to operate in and out of Lagos State through terminals other than MMA2, which was designated under the concession held by the first party involved. This decision resulted in the loss of revenues typically collected from fuel suppliers serving airlines at MMA2. Additionally, throughout the duration of this concession, the federal government approved plans for an airport project within Lagos state led by the local government but did not provide clear title over the general aviation facilities located at Murtala Muhammed International Airport, as previously committed in their contract with the first party. These moves by the federal government were perceived by the first party as attempts to prevent them from recovering approximately NGN 39 billion invested in reconstructing MMA2. In accordance with clause 22.1.1 of the original accord, the first party formally informed the second party—the Attorney-General—on June 20, 2008 about several disagreements stemming primarily from alleged breaches made by the Nigerian federal administration against the stipulated conditions of the deal. In response, a seven-person coordination panel chaired by the second party convened on September 10, 2008 aiming to address these concerns brought forth by the initial claimant.
After holding seven sessions and meticulously reviewing the proposals put forth by both sides, the coordination committee issued a report dated October 10, 2008. This document addressed and ruled on all five matters presented in favor of the first respondent. It instructed the Nigerian federal government to promptly transfer all planned domestic flight operations within Lagos State to MMA2. Additionally, it mandated that the federal government provide detailed accounts of revenues generated through these scheduled domestic flights conducted outside MMA2 during its operation period and direct those funds to the first respondent. Furthermore, the committee determined that only the first respondent should have the authority to levy charges collected from fuel suppliers providing jet fuels to airlines conducting regular domestic flights at and departing from MMA2. Despite serving this report upon the Nigerian federal government along with relevant agencies involved in aviation—including the appellant—they did not adhere to the recommendations made by the coordination committee. Consequently, the first respondent initiated legal proceedings via an originating summons filed on January 23, 2009, under Case Number FHC/ABJ/CS/50/2009 targeting the second respondent. Notably, the appellant was not part of this lawsuit. Following hearings, the lower court rendered its decision on March 3, 2009, supporting the claims of the first respondent. Subsequent to this ruling, the appellant lodged a motion on June 29, 2010, before the Court of Appeals seeking various remedies.
Extension of time to apply for permission to appeal as an "interested party" against the lower court's decision.
Appeal as an "interested party" against the decision made by the lower court.
Prolongation of the timeframe for appealing as an "interested party" against the decision made by the lower court.
Any additional orders the Court of Appeal might consider fitting under these specific conditions.
ALSO CHECK OUT IN THE NIGERIAN TRIBUNE: WhatsApp ceases operation on iPhone 6, along with 12 additional phone models starting June 2025
The appellant presented several arguments and bolstered them with a five-paragraph affidavit accompanied by five exhibits. Within this affidavit, the appellant asserted that they failed to file their application promptly due to being unaware of both the lawsuit and the lower court’s verdict. They added that once informed about the decision, they needed authorization from the Federal Ministry of Aviation, eventually obtaining approval on March 23, 2010. Conversely, the first respondent contested the application through a detailed eighteen-paragraph rebuttal statement. Upon review, the Court of Appeal rejected the request primarily citing incompetence and insufficient justification provided by the appellant for missing the statutory deadline for appeals. Unhappy with the outcome, the appellant took the matter to the Supreme Court but saw their plea denied. The highest judicial body determined that the FAA Nigeria's petition lacked merit since no permission was obtained prior to appealing as a non-original stakeholder in the initial proceedings.
Various problems stem from this case along with others currently before our judicial system. According to the reports, the lawsuit was initiated at the Federal High Court on January 23, 2009, and a decision was handed down on March 3, 2009. In July 2011, the Court of Appeal issued its ruling, followed by the Supreme Court delivering its verdict in June 2024. This indicates that the proceedings lasted approximately two months in the lower court, around two years in the appellate division, and nearly thirteen years within the apex court—on an issue as significant as international aviation access into Nigeria’s main economic hub. The litigation began via an originating summons, implying witness testimonies were unnecessary. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court announced its judgment on June 28, 2024, the official report wasn’t published until May 5, 2025. One must wonder what transpired during the handling and defense of both the appeal process and the airport concession contract? Are similar legal disputes awaiting resolution elsewhere in the judiciary? It took the appellant, FAAN, roughly two years to become aware of a pivotal ruling impacting their activities in their most active region, then over twelve additional years to finalize matters at the highest level of appeals. I've utilized MMA2 multiple times now and find Bi-Courtney's management style commendable. Previously, I advocated for replicating their approach across Nigerian domestic terminals. However, I contend that entrusting such crucial infrastructure solely to one company under monopolistic conditions isn't conducive to national interests; fostering competitive dynamics can lead to better outcomes overall. Both parties involved ought to devise strategies ensuring profitable returns for investors alongside enhanced services benefiting every citizen of Nigeria.
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. Syndigate.info ).
Posting Komentar