Centre for Oil Pollution Watch v. NNPC (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

At the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, (hereinafter, simply, called “the trial Court”), the appellant in this appeal, (as plaintiff), in an admiralty in personal action, claimed against the respondent herein, (as defendant), the following reliefs:

(a) Reinstatement, restoration and remediation of the impaired and/or contaminated environment in Acha autonomous community of Isukwuato Local Government Area of Abia State of Nigeria particularly the Ineh and Aku Streams which environment was contaminated by the oil spill complaint (sic) of;

(b) Provisions of portable water supply as a substitute to the soiled and contaminated Ineh/Aku streams, which are the only and/or major source of water supply to the community;

(c) Provision of medical facilities for evaluation and treatment of the victims of the after negative health effect of the spillage and/or the contaminated streams.

In the amended statement of claim filed on 9th February 2006, the plaintiff was described as a “Non Governmental Organisation incorporation in accordance with part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990…”

Paragraphs 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13 are germane. They were couched thus:
(2) The plaintiff carries on inter alia, the function of ensuring reinstatement, restoration and remediation of environments impaired by oil spillage/pollution particularly the un-owned environment or the environment that belongs to no one in particular, and this include but not limited to rivers, sea, sea birds, ecosystems and aquatic lives. The plaintiff ensures that the environments that belong to no one are kept clean and safe for human and aquatic live/consumptions. She has over 2000 members drawn from across the whole state of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and outside of Nigeria. Some of her members are indigenes of and/or live at at Acha Community and use the water from Ineh and Aku streams/rivers.

3. The defendant is a corporation established by the Act of Parliament and carries on business of prospecting, mining, producing, exploring and storing of persistent hydrocarbon mineral oil such as crude hydrocarbon oil and so on. She has offices, oil installations, oil exploring and storing of persistent hydrocarbon mineral oil such as crude hydrocarbon oil and so on. She has offices, oil installations, oil pipelines, oil rigs and so on in different parts of Nigeria with its principal place of business and/or its substantial part of business at No. 28 Ademola Road, off Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, Lagos.

9. The plaintiff further avers that the defendant was negligent in both the causation and containment of the oil spillage in that:
   A. The defendant ought to have carried out periodic inspection of its pipeline via X-rays to detect easy signs of corrosion and fracture.
   B. The defendant ought to have maintained proper surveillance with state of the art instrument panels that will promptly alert on a sudden loss in pressure along the pipeline which device would have served as an early warning of a leakage.
   C. The defendant knows that crude hydrocarbon oil is dangerous to ecosystem, marine aquatic lives, fauna and flora and being aware of natural tidal transport and sea waves within the area would have anticipated that in the case of an oil spill from these pipes that the two streams would be a natural point of entry.
10. The plaintiff averts that:

A. The oil spill, its drifting and introduction by the defendant into the Ineh and Aku streams, estuaries has deleterious effect as harm to living resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine life and other legitimate use of the streams. It has impaired the quality for the use of the streams and resulted in reduction of amenities and economic activities of the people of Acha community and environs.
B. The oil spillage left the Ineh/Aku streams impure, soiled, contaminated and they could no longer be put to their ordinary and natural use. They are no longer good for human consumption and aquatic lives, sea birds, fauna and flora no longer abound in them.
C. The defendant only stopped the leakages/spillage but never cleaned-up and/or adequately cleaned up or remedied the Ineh/Aku Streams
D. The plaintiff will show that oil is more toxicant than thought and dangerous to human health. It causes skin diseases, cancer, damage to lungs and reproductive systems and so on.
E. The plaintiff will rely on scientific report and opinion to show that the devastating effect of oil spill on the ecosystem, marine life and the forest system

persist for several decades except when properly and constantly cleaned for several years (minimum of 5 years) and; even after 10 years of the incident that oil still remains on the affected streams/lives causing skin diseases, cancer, damaging the reproductive system and respiratory system of users of the affected streams. It also leads to major social and psychological impact like depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

12. The plaintiff avers that to the naked eyes it seemed that the defendant having contained the spillage that all is normal but beneath the surface there exist excessive crude hydrocarbon oil in bottom sediments in Ineh/Aku streams. This continues to contaminate the streams.
13. The plaintiff averts that the inhabitants of Acha community, visitors and travelers thereto continue to use water from the Ineh/Aku streams (for all purposes that water is used) after the incident as there is no alternative water supply to them.

Subsequently, the respondent, (as defendant), by motion on notice of 14 July 2005, entreated the trial Court to strike out the suit in limine on the ground that the plaintiff lacked the necessary locus standi to institute and maintain the action on the alleged oil spillage in Acha Community of Isukwuato Local Government Area of Abia State. Persuaded by the defendant’s arguments, the trial Court struck out the suit “for want of locus standi on the part of the plaintiff.”

The plaintiff’s appeal to the Court of Appeal, Lagos division, having been dismissed on the ground that it lacked merit, they (the plaintiff, now appellant) repaired to this Court entreating it to determine the sole issue framed thus:
Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in dismissing the appellant’s appeal for want of locus standi to maintain the suit?

Arguments on the sole issue
Appellant’s submissions
At the hearing of the appeal on 30 April 2018, Joseph N. Mbadugha, learned counsel for the appellant, adopted the appellant’s brief filed on 5 August 2013. In the said brief, he argued the said sole issue under three sub-headings, namely:
(a) locus standi on environmental matters;
(b) Civil rights and obligations; and
(c) Extending the scope of locus standi

He first dealt with locus standi on environmental matters. Learned counsel, on this first arm of the issue, contended that the law on locus standi with respect to environmental matters that are maintained purely for public interest, without any private interest, has changed to the extent that pressure groups, Non-Governmental Organizations, (NGOs), and even public-spirited tax payers, are cloaked with the locus standi to maintain an action for public interest even though they may not have suffered any injury at all let alone any injury above every other member of the society from the subject matter of the suit,Adesanya v. The President, Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC (Reprint) 69, 86 – 87.

He submitted that a plaintiff who does not seek to establish a private right but rather the maintenance of a law for the public interest will have locus standi in the matter irrespective of whether he has any sufficient interest in the matter or has suffered any injury above every other member of the society in respect of the matter, Adesanya v. The President, Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra) 85 – 86.