ERHC Energy Inc., Peter Ntephe, and Sylvan Odobulu v. Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe Appeal from 157th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 10, 2019. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-18-00981-CV ERHC ENERGY INC., PETER NTEPHE, AND SYLVAN ODOBULU, Appellants V. KOSMOS ENERGY SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, Appellees On Appeal from the 157th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-71987 NO. 14-19-00271-CV IN RE ERHC ENERGY. INC., PETER NTEPHE AND SYLVAN ODOBULU, Relators ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS On Appeal from the 157th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-71987 MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 5, 2018, appellants appealed a modified temporary injunction order. That appeal was assigned case number 14-18-00981-CV. On March 29, 2019, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the same order in addition to other orders issued to enforce the provisions of the temporary injunction. That original proceeding was assigned case number 14-19-00271-CV. On April 9, 2019, this court consolidated the appeal and petition for writ of mandamus into one action. On September 6, 2019, the district clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing an order granting appellees’ nonsuit on July 15, 2019. On September 18, 2019, appellees notified this court that the trial court action was dismissed, and the temporary injunction order is no longer in effect. The appeal and petition for writ of mandamus are therefore moot. See Isuani v. Manske–Sheffield Radiology Grp., P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991) (when a trial court renders a final judgment while an appeal of an order granting or denying a temporary injunction is pending, the temporary injunction order becomes moot). Accordingly, the appeal and petition for writ of mandamus are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Wise and Zimmerer. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.