Court Jurisdiction, Procedure and Review: Subject Matter Jurisdiction

摘要

In 1992, Moni Pulo Limited is granted an oil prospecting license from Nigeria. Moni Pulo and Trutec enter into a number of transactions relating to the license. Earlier litigation between these two parties over those transactions is dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Moni Pulo. Moni Pulo Ltd. v. Trutec Oil & Gas, Inc., 130 S.W.2d 170 [163 O.&G.R. 421] (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). In this action, Trutec is suing other parties who assert an interest in the licenses through Moni Pulo for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and tortious interference with contract. The trial court determines that the essence of the litigation relates to interests in Nigerian real property for which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Held: affirmed. In the earlier litigation against the principal party, the court noted that, under Texas law, the suit was a claim for a mineral interest relating to title. As a general matter, Texas courts may not adjudicate title to realty in another state or country because they lack subject matter jurisdiction. Trutec argues that its claims are contract and tort-based and therefore do not require any adjudication over real property interests in Nigeria. Relying on domestic United States cases, the court analyzes the alleged causes of actions and concludes that ownership of the "license" or mineral estate will be a critical part of those claims. The court also reviews the Nigeria Petroleum Act to determine the nature of the interests granted by the license and concludes that being given the exclusive right to explore and prospect for petroleum. While the license is not treated as a domestic oil and gas lease and nowhere does it say that there has been a conveyance of interests in real property, the court applies Texas concepts and finds that the license is the equivalent of an oil and gas lease and thus constitutes an interest in real property.