Shell claimed that the anti-graft agency made it to pay the sum of $1.2 million (about 239 million) to a firm, which it claims it was not indebted to after EFCC allegedly threatened to arrest and detain its directors.

The plaintiff is praying the court to hold that EFCC was not vested with judicial powers under Section 6 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution and therefore cannot act like a court.

Shell filed three suits against EFCC claiming similar reliefs. In one of the suits in which Dec Oil and Gas Limited is the second defendant, Shell said it signed contract on March 29, 2000, with Dec Oil and Gas Limited for the construction of a Gas Distribution Pipeline at Agbara/Ota.

However, Shell later terminated the contract in December 2001, following which Dec Oil and Gas Limited claimed that Shell was indebted to it and sued.

The Federal High Court entered judgment in Dec’s Oil and Gas Limited favour, but Shell appealed against the judgment. Shell claimed that the Court of Appeal set aside the judgment, but Dec Oil and Gas Limited appealed to the Supreme Court.

While the suit was pending, EFCC invited Shell with a view to determining “the civil contractual rights and obligations between the plaintiff (Shell) and the second defendant (Dec Oil and Gas Limited).”

Shell claimed that even though it drew EFCC’s attention to a pending court case, the commission “vehemently insisted, under threat of arrest and detention of officers of the plaintiff, that it must determine the civil contractual liability of the plaintiff” The plaintiff, shell Nigeria Gas Limited said EFCC later found it “liable”, and it was made to pay $1.2miliion.

“The plaintiff was not indebted to the second defendant in respect of the contract,” Shell insisted.

It added: “The plaintiff brought this action EFCC in collusion with the second defendant became unbearable.”

But the EFCC and the second defendant denied the claims. The commission said: “EFCC was and is investigating alleged diversion of loans and advances made against the second defendant by some of its creditor-banks.”

It added that a bank petitioned the commission and listed Dec Oil and Gas as one of the customers who allegedly might have diverted loans and advances to frivolous projects not related to the original transactions entered into.

Shell was “implicated” as being indebted to Dec Oil and Gas making it impossible for the company to meet its financial obligations to third party banks.

The second defendant said Shell has no cause of action against it, adding: “This action is a ploy to overreach the Federal High Court in suit no. FHC/L/CS/1075/2002.”

At the hearing of the suit on Wednesday, Shell’s counsel Babatunde Ogungbamila prayed the court for extension of time within which the plaintiff can file a counter-affidavit in opposition to Dec’s Oil and Gas preliminary objection.

Consequently, Justice John Tsoho granted the application and adjourned till June 4 for hearing.

U no see court for there before u pay ni?

Rubbish!!! corrupt agencies... EFCC inclusive!!!!