Shell-BP Petroleum Development Company Of Nig. Ltd V. His Highness Pere Cole & Ors (1978)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

BELLO, J.S.C. 

The respondents are members of Sagbama people who are the owners of the land over which the Sagbama creek flows and are also the owners and occupiers of the land on the banks of the creek. In 1971, without the authority and consent of the Sagbama people, the Appellants dredged the creek in order to facilitate their oil prospecting operations.

In consequence of the damage and loss caused by the dredging operations, the respondents for themselves and on behalf of the Sagbama people commenced proceedings in the High Court, Warri, and they as plaintiffs claimed against the appellants as defendants:

“The sum of 60,000Pounds (Sixty Thousand Pounds) being a fair, reasonable and adequate compensation payable by the Defendants to the plaintiffs for the damage done to Plaintiff’s property that is to say the Sagbama Creek- a creek over which the Plaintiffs had exercised and continued to exercise customary rights from time immemorial whereby the defendants during their dredging operation of the said creek caused damage to plaintiffs gravel, sand, juju shrines, erosion to Plaintiff’s land and occasioned permanent loss of fishing rights on or about May, 1971, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.”

After a review of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Judge found that in the dry season the creek used to dry up leaving pockets of water which formed a lake and ponds in places along the course of the creek wherein Sagbama people used to catch fish and they also used to win gravel and sand for commercial purposes in the creek; that as the result of the dredging no lake or ponds in which the people may catch fish is or are being formed and that no gravel or sand is being won by the Sagbama people.

He also found that in the course of the dredging exercise fishing equipment and canoes belonging to the Sagbama people were destroyed and their juju shrine were damaged and desecrated. He found the appellants liable in damages for the loss occasioned to the Sagbama people.

In his consideration of the evidence relating to the issue of damages, the learned trial Judge found that the evidence led by the respondents provided him with no basis upon which to quantify the loss. He then proceeded to make the following observations:

“In assessing the damages and compensation, what this court must strive to do in the circumstances is clearly stated in decided cases and I will refer to four of them on the point.

As Vaughan Williams, L. J. put it in the case of Chaplin v. Hicks 1911-13 All ER (Reprint) which is the leading case on the issue of certainty, the fact that damages cannot be assessed with certainty does not relieve the wrongdoer of the necessity of paying damages. To my mind this also holds good for a compensation claim.

In the same case of Chaplin against Hicks, Fletcher Moulton said at page 229:
‘It is, however, clear that where in the minds of reasonable men there has been a de facto loss the jury is to do their best to estimate it. It is not necessary there should be an accepted measure of damages’

Again, in Biggin v. Permanite, Devlin, J., stated the approach to the problem thus:

‘Where precise evidence is obtainable the court naturally expects to have it, (but) where it is not, the court must do the best it can’

As is stated in Mayne and Mcgregor on Damages 12th Edition, Article 175 at page 174 of the work in certain cases, general damages may be awarded in the sense of damages “such as the jury may give when the judge cannot appoint any measure by which they are to be assessed except the opinion  and judgment of a reasonable  man”. The case cited there is Prehn v. Royal Bank of Liverpool (1870) 5 Ex. 92, 99-100 per Martin B.

Bearing the principles just set out in mind, I will now proceed to assess what would be a fair and adequate compensation for the damage done by the Defendants.