The Shell Petroleum Development Company Of Nigeria Limited V. Chief G.b.a. Tiebo & Ors (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNTADE, J.S.C.

The respondents as the plaintiffs commenced their suit on 6th June, 1988 at the Yenagoa High Court of Rivers State claiming against the defendant for the sum of Sixty four million, one hundred and forty six thousand naira being special and general damages for the negligence of the defendant and for allowing crude oil, which the defendant was mining, to spill into the lands, swamps, creeks, ponds, lakes and shrines of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued for themselves and as the representatives of the Peremabiri Community in YELGA. The parties filed and exchanged pleadings after which the suit was heard by Blankson J. In all, the plaintiffs called nine witnesses in support of their case. The defendant called three. At the conclusion of hearing, the learned trial Judge in his judgment on 27/2/91 awarded in plaintiffs’ favour, general damages totaling six million naira and one million naira costs. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, the defendant brought an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Division (hereinafter referred to as ‘the court below’). On 27th March, 1996, the court below in its judgment dismissed the appeal. The defendant has come before this court on a further appeal. In the appellant’s brief, filed for the defendant, the issues for determination in the appeal were identified as the following:

“(1) Was the judgment of the court below ultra vires

(2) Was the court below right in confirming the award of N400,000.00 as special damages in respect of raffia palms allegedly destroyed by crude oil after the trial court found that there was no credible evidence to support the claim for special damages for the raffia palms and there was no appeal from this finding

(3) Was the court below right in upholding the award of N600,000.00 as general damages for money spent in buying water for drinking and other domestic uses when there was no credible evidence supporting purchase of water anywhere

(4) Was the court below right in confirming the award of general damages of N5,000.00 for hazards, general inconveniences and miscellaneous losses and expenses after holding that fear was not a recognised head of damages in negligence.

(5) Did the award of costs of N1,000,000.00 confirmed by the court below follow the principles laid down by law for indemnifying a successful party in litigation”

The respondents formulated five issues but these issues are amply covered by the appellant’s four issues. None of the issues formulated by the appellant contests the correctness of the liability in negligence as ascribed to the appellant by the trial court in its judgment.

This makes it necessary for me to discuss only the facts, as are relevant, on the awards of damages and costs which are being challenged in this appeal. It suffices to say by way of a background that the case made by the plaintiffs before the trial court was that the defendant, an oil exploration company, on 16th January, 1987, negligently caused a major crude oil spillage of over six hundred barrels from its flow station and on its pipeline or other installations at or near the plaintiffs’ village called Peremabiri. The plaintiffs in paragraphs 9 to 14 of their statement of claim pleaded the nature of the damage done to them by the spillage thus:

“9. Consequent upon the aforesaid oil the Nun river, the plaintiffs farms, farmlands, swamps creeks, fish ponds, fishing nets, raffia palms and juju shrines etc. were extensively polluted and damaged, and fishing and farming their main occupation halted.

10. The plaintiffs who use the aforesaid river and creeks for drinking, irrigation and other domestic purposes also had to spend colossal amount of money in buying water.
11. The plaintiffs also lost much revenue as they could no longer hire out the damaged communal fishing nets to fishermen from the community and neighbouring towns and villages.
12. The plaintiffs spent huge sums of money in appeasing and resettling their PINAORU, KURUGBO and KOROMODE juju shrines which were defiled and desecrated by the aforesaid oil spillage.
13. The aforesaid oil spillage also occasioned enormous medical expenses to the plaintiffs as the defendant company failed to fly in medical and relief materials.
14. The plaintiff community number about 50,000 out of which the active fishing population number 20,000.” And in paragraph 17 of their statement of claim, the plaintiffs set out the particulars of special damages claimed thus:

“Particulars of Damage

Special Damage

(i) Pollution of 40 fish ponds 2,000.000

(ii) Damage to communal fishing nets 4,000.000