Godpower Nkeweke & Anor V. Nigerian Agip Oil Co. Ltd (1976)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IRIKEFE, JSC. 

The appellants were the plaintiffs in a suit before the Port-Harcourt Judicial Division of the High Court of the Rivers State in which they claimed as follows: “The plaintiffs claim from the defendants the sum of £233,828 (two hundred and thirty three thousand eight hundred and twenty eight pounds) being compensation and value of economic trees, ponds, lakes, fishing creeks and juju shrines damaged and lands deprived of the plaintiffs by the defendants as a result of the defendants’ oil operation on plaintiffs’ land at OBRIKOM VILLAGE in AHOADA DIVISION within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court”.

Pleadings were ordered and duly delivered. In their amended Statement of Claim, the appellants averred inter alia as follows:

1. “The plaintiffs are members of Umuju Family of Obrikom Village in Ahoada Division and bring this action on the authority and approval of the members of the said family and with the leave of this Honourable Court.

2. The defendants are limited liability company incorporated in Nigeria and carry on the business of oil exploration and other activities connected with oil exploration.

3. The damage caused to fishing creeks, economic trees, fishing ponds, fishing lakes, juju shrines and the deprivation of lands belonging to the plaintiffs by the defendants, which are the subject matter of this suit are situated on a parcel of land known as OKUKINA in Obrikom within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

4. The said damaged fishing creeks, fishing lakes, fishing ponds, economic trees, juju shrines and the parcels of lands deprived the plaintiffs of by the defendants have always been the exclusive, properties of the plaintiffs.

5. In March, 1966 the defendants entered the said Okukina land while carrying out their oil exploration operations thereby caused the alleged damage.

6. On the said Okukina land, the plaintiffs have four fishing creeks, namely IHEBOM, UTU-OLU and UTU-HU, which flow to UTU.

7. The total length of the four fishing creeks is eleven miles and they contain 120 fishing ponds from which fish was caught annually.

8.Defendants blockaded UTU-OLU creek at a point near EBOCHA LOCATION 6, UTU-HU at a point near EBOCHA 5, and UTU at a point near EBOCHA LOCATION 2, all of which are situated on OKUKINA LAND. As a result of these blockades by the defendants, the level of the water upstream rose and covered a large area on both banks of the said creeks, making all fishing activities in the said creeks and the fishing ponds impossible up to the time this action was filed. The damage to the creeks and the fishing ponds is still continuing.

9. At the entrance to EBOCHA LOCATION 5 about hundred yards away from the main road leading from the pontoon waterside there was the shrine of a famous juju by name “OBILEGWE” belonging to the plaintiffs which the defendants completely destroyed. The defendants also destroyed “OKWUOMU SHRINE” another famous juju belonging to the plaintiffs which was right on the spot where the defendants now have the largest BURROW-PIT on the right hand side of the access road to EBOCHA LOCATION 6.”  These two jujus were among the most famous jujus in the whole AHOADA DIVISION. The defendants leveled the said two juju shrines to the ground and destroyed valuable antiquities.   “

10. Sometimes in August 1971, two of the defendants’ damage clerks in persons of Ijeoma and Luckyn went with the plaintiffs’ solicitor for re-assessment and one of the points mutually agreed upon by the parties was that the blockade made the level of the water rise and covered both banks of the creeks up to 50 yards in width.    The following are the names of the said fishing creeks and their lengths: (1) IHEBOM – 3 miles (2) UTU-OLU – 4 miles (3) UTU-HU – 2 miles (4) UTU – 2 miles

11. After the re-assessment, defendants in a letter to Chief Brown Ezi and Chief Thompson Nkweke Ref. LD/CWA/TLD/1172/72 dated 24th August, 1971, and copied the plaintiffs’ solicitor, apologised for the delay the defendants’ company had made in the payment of compensation for the damage defendants had caused on the plaintiffs’ land and offered £1,373.15/- (one thousand three hundred and seventy three pounds fifteen shillings) as the compensation for the damage they had caused. This was rejected by the plaintiffs since they said it was not adequate.