Facts:

The Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Minister of Petroleum Resources, on February 23, 1998, awarded an Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL), covering an area of 1000 square miles, known as “OPL 246”, for a statutory five-year tenure, to the Appellant herein. The Appellant’s license was, further, extended for another tenure of five years, on November 12, 2002. It was, therefore, due to expire on March 28, 2008. The said OPL 246 entitled the Appellant to an exclusive right to the exploration and prospecting of commercial quantities of crude oil found in the designated area and to convert same into an Oil Mining Lease (OML). Furthermore, upon the grant of an Oil Mining Lease (OML) to the holder of an Oil Prospecting Licence (OPL), the grantee or holder of the OPL, is taken to have mandatorily relinquished the unconverted part or residue of the OPL to the Federal Government.
Upon discovery of oil in commercial quantity, the Appellant, on March 8, 2004, applied to the Department of Petroleum Resources for the conversion of the eastern portion of the said OPL 246 to an OML. The Department of Petroleum Resources, on February 21, 2005, approved the conversion of the eastern portion, which constituted fifty percent of the total area of OPL 246, to OML and designated the new block as “OML 130.” Again, the Appellant, on June 27, 2005, applied for an “additional” OML deriving from the remainder of the OPL 246. The Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR), on March 1, 2006, and March 21, 2006, respectively, informed the Appellant that its application was not approved by the Government. It requested the Appellant to commence the relinquishment process of the unconverted portion of OPL 246 to the Government. In May 2006, the DPR then sought to auction the unconverted portion of OPL 246 for sale to third parties, among which included the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. The Appellant approached the Federal High Court (trial Court), vide an Ex Parte application for a Judicial Review of the 1st respondent’s administrative decisions on whether the grant of an Oil Mining Lease (OML) out of OPL 246 ought to necessitate a mandatory relinquishment of the unconverted residue in the acreage or contract area. The learned trial Judge decided that the decision of the Government to insist on the reversionary right to the unconverted residue of OPL 246, is not unlawful. In other words, all unconverted residue in an acreage wherein a mining lease has been procured automatically reverts to the Government. By implication, the unconverted residue must be relinquished to the Government as a matter of law.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court appealed to the Court of Appeal (lower court). The lower court firmly held that the bedrock of the appeal had been destroyed because the period allocated to the Appellant for the lease of OPL 246 had expired by effluxion of time, and thus dismissed the appeal.
Still dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.