The Shell Petroleum Development Company Of Nigeria Limited v. Mr. John Nyesomnazu Okeh & Ors (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal probes into the rightness of the decision of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division (hereunder addressed as the lower court), Coram Judice: T. N. Orji-Abadua, I. O. Akeju and C. I. Jombo-Ofo, JJCA, in appeal No. CA/PH/60/2015, delivered on the 11th December, 2017. In its decision, the lower allowed in part the judgment of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt (the trial court), in suit No. FHC/PH/CS/4651/2006, delivered on the 8th June, 2012, wherein I. N. Buba, J. granted the respondents claims in part.

The precis of the material facts of the case, which transformed into the appeal, are incompatible with complexity. The respondents alleged that on or about the 6th August, 2006, there was an oil spillage along the appellants Trans Niger Pipeline (TNP) at 24 Nkpoku to Bomu Trunkline at Eneka which destroyed the respondents large expanse of land, farm lands and economic trees and crops thereon.

The respondents alleged that they suffered severe, extensive damages and untold hardship as a result of the spillage. Sequel to that, the respondents beseeched the trial court, via a writ of summons filed on the 13th November, 2006, wherein they tabled against the appellant the following reliefs:

“Whereof the plaintiffs aver that they have by the reason of the defendants action suffered severe, extensive damages and untold hardship and claim special and general damages as follows:

(a) Loss occasioned to the plaintiffs on their damages/destroyed economic crops on the farms (Reference the valuers Report dated 21/9/06). = N1,689,690.00

(b) Injuries inflicted on plaintiff by = N5,536,000.00

(c) General inconveniences caused by the spill = N7,850,000.00

(d) Cost of making demand letters on the defendant and prosecuting this case against defendant = N525,000.00

= N15,600,000.00

2. General Damages = N 4,400,000.00

Total = N 20,000,000.00

3. Interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the total sum claimed as may be determined by the honourable court from 6/8/2006 till the date judgment is satisfied.”

As expected, the appellant, upon service of the process on it, joined issue with the respondents by filing a statement of defence wherein it raised the defence of sabotage against the respondents action.

Following the discordant claims, the trial court had a full-dress determination of the suit. In proof of the case, the respondents fielded two witnesses, PW1 and PW2, and tendered documentary evidence: exhibits P1 – P4, In disproof of the case, the appellant called three witnesses, DW1 – DW3, and tendered documentary evidence: exhibits P5 – P9.

At the closure of evidence, the parties, through their respective counsel, addressed the trial court in a manner allowed by law. In a considered judgment, delivered on the 8th June, 2012, reflected between pages 77-103 of the record, the trial court granted the claims in part.