Compagnie Genrralede Geophysique (Nig.) Ltd V. Luke Asaagbara & Anor (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PATS-ACHOLONU, J.C.A.

In this case, the plaintiff who worked for the defendant as a casing clerk had filed an action against the defendant now Appellant which is a company that is engaged in oil exploration activities of drilling nature and which involves carrying of heavy pipes in the fields. In the course of the plaintiff’s work he has to put on some overall. The overall garment was said to have been torn by a sharp stick on the swampy terrain the parties were working. The stick tore through his penis and pierced his scrotum and the stomach. He was hospitalized in Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital where he was treated after which he was given a paper that he is now impotent.

He brought this action against the Appellant for negligence. The Appellant then as defendant filed a motion praying the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction. The motion was supported by an affidavit of 6 paragraphs. Paragraph 4 of that affidavit states that:

“In determining the case of negligence, the Court below will determine the issue of weight of casing pipes used in the Oil field and procedure of exploratory activities…”

A further averment following that states that, if that is the case, then the High Court of Rivers State has no business with assuming jurisdiction as such jurisdiction is vested in the Federal High Court.

The counter-affidavit filed debunked the issue of the Court below embarking into issue of casing or procedures of exploration activities pointing out the case against the defendants is that of simple tort of negligence of which the State High Court has the exclusive jurisdiction.

In his ruling, the Court below held inter alia:

“I have had a look at the relevant enactments from Cap. 134 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, through Decrees No. 60 of 1991, No. 66 of 1992 and 107 of 1993. I am of the view that there is nothing in their provision to exclude a claim for personal injury suffered by a person who claims to be an employee of the defendants based on negligence from being laid in a State High Court having regard to the circumstances of the case. I find that most of the decided cases referred to by counsel deal mainly with the peripheral issue of principles governing the application of ouster clauses”.

He thereupon dismissed the application.

The Defendant/Appellant then appealed to this Court and formulated 3 issues while the Respondent also framed 3 issues for consideration.

In my view, the real issue is “whether the State High Court has jurisdiction to try cases of such negligent matter arising out of the operation of mines and minerals and oil explorations including geological surveys and exploitation of”.

To determine whether the State High Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter, it is necessary to refer to the provision of the Act which confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court oil exploration and survey related matter and find out how the claim comes within the purview of a particular judicial hierarchy. In his argument, the learned Counsel for the Appellant first referred to section 15(1) of the Petroleum Act, Cap, 350, Laws of the Federation 1990 in relation to Petroleum and its exploits and what is involved. There, the law describes ‘explore’ to include ‘To make a preliminary search by surface geological and geophysical methods including aerial surveys but excluding drilling below 91.44 metres’. Equally too, the section defines the word ‘prospect’ to mean search for by all geological and geophysical methods including drilling and seismic operations. The Appellant Counsel submits that this involves geological survey activities in an oil field.

It was argued that since the 1st Respondent sustained injuries when he was involved in the company’s operation when the injury was sustained, the whole matter was related and connected with and pertaining to and/or arising from subject-matter of mines and mineral including oil field, oil mining and geological surveys. On the other hand, it is the Respondents argument that the injury caused by the negligence of the Appellants did not arise from mines and minerals. He contended that the law that applied was the law in existence as at the time the injury was caused and not any law passed subsequently thereafter.

From the record, the writ of summons was taken out on 25/5/93. What was the state of the law then as affecting the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court?. This is contained in section 2 of the Federal High Court Amendment (Decree) now Act No. 60 of 1991 which state as follows: