Mr. Bayo Ayadi & Ors V. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. 

By an Amended Statement of claim filed on the 5th of September 2005, the appellants (as plaintiffs) claimed against the respondent (then defendant) the sum of Forty-four million six hundred and ninety six thousand naira only (N44,696,000.00) being special and general damages caused to them by the respondent’s oil spill of February-March 1998 while carrying out their fishing activities. At the trial, the appellants called four (4) witnesses and tendered documents which were admitted as Exhibits ?A-H?. The respondent called six (6) witnesses and tendered documents which were admitted as Exhibits ?J and K”. Learned counsel to the parties filed written addresses which were accordingly adopted. The learned trial Judge of the Federal High Court, Kaduna Division, (the lower Court) delivered his judgment on the 24th of April, 2012, wherein the claims of the appellants were dismissed in its entirety. Aggrieved by the decision of the lower Court, the appellants filed Notice and grounds of appeal on the 20th of July 2012 challenging the decision of the lower Court.

In accordance

1

with Rules of Court, 2011, the appellants filed brief of argument on the 26th of May, 2015, wherein three (3) issues were distilled out of the grounds of appeal on page 4 thereof. The respondent filed brief of argument on 29th of February 2016, with leave of Court. The respondent compressed the 4 issues contained in the appellants’ brief of argument into one issue on page 3 of the brief of argument. The appellants filed a Reply brief which was deemed filed on 1st of March 2016.
The 3 issues contained on page 4 of the appellants’ brief of argument which the respondent compressed into one issue, are these:
(a) Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that PW2 and PW4 are not expert witnesses (GROUND 3)
(b) Whether the learned trial Judge misdirected himself when he held that the appellants who raised the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor still had the burden of proving negligence (GROUND TWO)
(c) Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the appellants as plaintiffs did not discharge the burden of proof (GROUNDS ONE AND FOUR).

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
Issues 1, 2 and 3 are hereunder resolved

2

seriatim.

ISSUE 1
Whether the learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that PW2 and PW4 are not expert witnesses? On this Ishola Esq., of learned counsel to the appellants referred to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and submitted that where an opinion on any issue/matter is required from a person specialized in that thing, such opinion is admissible under Section 68 of the Evidence. That such opinion is admissible if it is from a person who has special knowledge, training or experience in the matter in question. That such person is referred to as an expert. The cases of Azu v. The State (1993) 7 SCNJ P. 151 and Seismograph Services Ltd v. Onokpasa (1972) 4 SC 110 @ 112 cited and relied on to buttress the submissions supra. Counsel pointed out that it is necessary to ascertain if a person whose opinion is required is an expert; the issue on which the opinion is required; and also whether the person is an expert on the point in issues or not.

?Learned counsel further adumbrated that the case of the appellants was that the respondent’s Oil Spill caused damages to their fishing business and equipment entitling them to damages. That in order to

3

prove their case the opinion of a person specialized in oil spill and the damage it could cause are relevant. That PW2 and PW4 testified expressing their opinion on the issue, as well as tendering Exhibits F and H which the learned trial Judge of the lower Court did not rely on because he held that they were not experts without giving reasons for such decision. That the learned trial Judge was wrong in not relying on the evidence and the documents prepared by PW2 and PW4 without giving reasons for doing so which is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofAgbanielo v. UBN (2000) 4 SC (Pt. 1) P. 233 @ 239.
?
It has been submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have accepted and relied on the evidence of PW4 as evidence of an expert because of his qualification, training and various previous works and engagements in the relevant field or business involving environmental activities, Oil spillage and pollutions in coastal communities over the years. Learned counsel referred to and listed various works and engagements by PW4 in the field of environmental assessment in oil spillage, pollution in the coastal areas testing the presence of

4

crude oil and its impact in the Aquatic Environment. That in view of the foregoing, PW4 is an expert whose evidence could have assisted the lower Court in arriving at a just decision, which the learned trial Judge rejected without proffering reasons.