3. Briefly, the petitioner seeks the appointments of interim liquidators based on allegations raised in its petition but perhaps more importantly in relation to recent events which it claims necessitates the urgency of the present application. Its claim is this. It says monies that belong to the respondent which are currently held under the custody of a sole arbitrator named Albert Jan van den Berg (the arbitrator) in Singapore in an arbitration proceeding that is pending before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), are about to be released to the respondent. Therefore, it seeks to secure the said funds by the appointment of the interim liquidators before the funds are paid to the respondent. The arbitrator was appointed in December of 2014. His role was to arbitrate a contractual dispute which had occurred between the petitioner, the respondent, and the Fly River Provincial Government. The dispute that had arose relates to a road and related projects agreement described as Gre-Drimgas-Duara-WoiWoi Falls Road that was said to have been signed between the 3 parties on 23 May 2011 (the purported project agreement). It appeared that due to certain obligations not met under the purported project agreement, the project was delayed for some years. In 2014, the respondent commenced proceeding in the SIAC. The petitioner responded by filing a proceeding in the National Court, which was proceeding OS No. 824 of 2015. It sought relief which included orders to permanently stay the arbitration proceeding. On 19 October 2018, the National Court dismissed the proceeding. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which was under proceeding SCA No. 187 of 2018. On 20 February 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal. In so doing, it also awarded costs of (i), the arbitration, (ii), the National Court and (iii), the Supreme Court, in favour of the petitioner with orders for their taxation.
4. The petitioner has recently learnt that the arbitrator, in light of the Supreme Court's decision, is about to put an end to the arbitration proceeding in Singapore, and return the funds that had been deposited by or on behalf of the respondent, to the respondent. That is why it has filed the petition and the present urgent application.