Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited V. His Royal Highness Oba Yinusa a. Ayeni & Ors (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, J.C.A.

The appellant/applicant has, by a motion on notice dated 16th May, 2005 and filed on 28th May, 2005 pursuant to Order 3 rule 3(4) and sections 16 and 18 of the Court of Appeal Rules and Act, 2002 respectively.

Sought for an order for stay of proceedings in suit No. FHC/L/CS/1344/2003 before the Federal High Court Lagos pending the determination of the appeal against the ruling of the lower court delivered on the 28th July, 2004. The application is supported by an affidavit of 17 paragraphs dated 18th May, 2005, a further affidavit dated and filed 25th January, 2006 of 6 paragraphs and a second further affidavit of 5 paragraphs dated and filed on 8th June, 2006 on which the applicant relied.

The brief facts of the case as can be gathered from the record are that the plaintiffs/respondents are allegedly amongst several claimants claiming to have been adversely affected by the oil spill incident that occurred on the 12th January, 1998 from a rupture in the oil pipe line rig platform known as the “doho” some 14km (at sea) from the South-Eastern Coast of Nigeria where the Qua Iboe Terminal (QIT) is located at the coast – “beno” in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. The respondents as plaintiffs took out a writ of summons against the appellant/applicant as defendant dated and filed on the 23rd December, 2003, and also filed a statement of claim on the same date in which the endorsed amount claimed is:-

1. N663,858,075.00 (Six hundred and sixty three million, eight hundred and fifty eight thousand seventy five naira) as special damages for the loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the oil spill from the defendant’s pipeline at Eket in Akwa Ibom State.
2. The same of N186,141,925.00 (One hundred and eighty six million one hundred and forty one thousand nine hundred and twenty five naira) as general damages.
3. Cost.

The defendant filed a memorandum of conditional appearance on the 1st March, 2004, and then filed a motion on notice dated 2nd March, 2004 seeking an order striking out the suit on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same.

A summary of the three (3) grounds upon which the application was brought are as follows:-

1. The plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant is in respect of compensation for damages allegedly caused as a result of oil pollution.
2. The source of the oil pollution was the defendant/applicant’s Idoho production platform in interstate and/or territorial water of Nigeria.
3. By virtue of section 18 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991, the plaintiffs’ claim being a maritime or admiralty claims is statute-barred.

The plaintiff/respondent filed a Counter-affidavit dated the 22nd March 2004 stating that their action was based on the tort of negligence and that the statutory limitation period for an action in the tort of negligence was six years, therefore by their cause of action which arose on the 21st January, 1998 and their statement of claim filed on the 28th December 2003, they were within the time limit and their action was not statute-barred.

Written arguments were submitted by Counsel to both parties on points of law. On the 28th July, 2004, the Federal High Court delivered its ruling on the appellants/applicant’s application dated the 2nd March, 2004 seeking to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the application and declared that it has the jurisdiction to hear the suit.

The appellant/applicant being dissatisfied with that ruling appealed to this court as per the notice of appeal exhibit A annexed to the supporting affidavit dated and filed on 18th May, 2005.

The appellant/applicant then applied for stay of proceedings before the lower court pending the determination of the appeal before this court. In its ruling delivered on the 12th of May, 2005 the court below refused to stay proceeding before it as per exhibit AG 2 attached to the further affidavit of Adekoya Olubusayo sworn to on 25th January, 2006.

The appellant/applicant now brings this application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal.

The learned Counsel to the appellant/applicant raised the following three issues for determination:-

(a) What are the guiding principles for the grant of a stay of proceedings?

(b) What is the duty of a court faced with such an application?