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

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

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.