Mrs. Meeting Omas V. Baroid Drilling Chemic Products Ltd & Anor (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ALI ABUBAKAR BABNDI GUMBL, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Benin Division, delivered on 29/06/2006 in Suit No. FHC/B/C5/109/2005. The claim of the appellant as the Plaintiff, before the lower Court was for an order that the Defendants shall jointly and severally: –

a) Remediate or do remediation of the soil of her piece or parcel of land; and

b) Treat the soil/water/free from contamination.

In alternative to these reliefs the appellant sought for an order that: –

1) The Defendants shall relocate Plaintiff to a new plot of land bought by Defendants with Plaintiffs’ consent/approval/participation within the same Sedco Road, Enerhen Area, and built up to decking level which level Plaintiff has built up to and was or only to be compelled to stop by Defendants’ acts complained of;

Also in a further alternative relief the Plaintiff/Appellant sought for;

– the Defendants pay to the Plaintiff the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only.

The Defendants entered appearance and filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit of the Plaintiff against the defendants. The ground of the preliminary objection was predicated on the subject matter of the suit being outside the ones cognizable by the lower Court under the 1999 constitution. This preliminary objection was duly argued by respective learned Counsel. In its ruling, the lower Court upheld the objection and declined jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant. Also, the lower Court relied on S.22(2) of the Federal High court to transfer the Suit to the Delta State High court.

The Appellant was dissatisfied with the whole of this decision/ruling and appealed to this Court in a notice of appeal dated and filed on 12/07/2006. The notice of appeal contains 2 grounds of appeal. Upon these grounds of appeal, learned Counsel to the appellant filed a brief of argument dated 29-09-2006.

The Respondents were duly served with the Appellant’s brief of argument on 15th January, 2007 but they failed to file their response to it. Upon the application of the Appellant, this court made an order on 3rd February, 2010 that this appeal be heard and determined on the Appellant’s brief alone. During the hearing of the appeal before us on 11th May, 2010, learned Counsel to the Appellant identified, adopted and relied on his brief of argument dated and filed on 20-09-06.

In the appellant’s brief of argument, learned Counsel Mr. Anibor formulated 2 issues for the determination of this appeal. They are: –

1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that it is the High court of Delta state and not the Federal High court that has jurisdiction to try and determine the claims of the Appellant against the Respondents.

2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in invoking on his own motion the Petroleum Act 1960 and the Oil Pipeline Act of 1956 and coming to a decision on the said Acts or raw without hearing the Appellant.