Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation V. Mallam Idi Zaria & Anor (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A. (Delivering the leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna in Suit No. FHC/KD/CS/19/1998 delivered by Honourable Justice A. M. Liman on the 10th of August, 2009. The action in the Lower Court was commenced by the first Respondent, as plaintiff, on behalf of the members of Fadama Farmers Association against the Appellant, as defendant.

The case of the first Respondent before the lower Court was that they were at all material times the owners and persons entitled to possession of the land and premises situate at and known as “along River Romi Area” measuring 918.237 acres and comprising of eleven villages. It was their case that in 1992, the Appellant through its servants, agents and/or privies wrongfully entered into the said land and premises and took possession, polluting same with oil spills and other harmful chemicals in the process and made the land and premises inhabitable and un-cultivatable and destroyed their farmlands and crops worth over N196,017,647.00 and that the Appellant threatened and intended to remain in wrongful possession thereof. The first Respondent claimed for:

i. An order of injunction to restrain the Defendant by itself, its servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from remaining on or continuing in occupation of the said lands and premises.

ii. The sum of N196,017,647.00 as damages.

iii. Possession of the said lands and premises without paying compensation or adequate compensation to the Plaintiffs, despite repeated demands and threats of litigation.

iv. An injunction restraining the Defendant from further polluting and/or in any other way destroying the said lands and premises.

Alternatively;

The sum of N196,017,647.00 damages as compensation and/or damages for trespass.

The first Respondent stated on the pleadings that they inherited the said farmlands from their ancestors who had been the owners thereof from time immemorial and had been living, cultivating and depending on the said farmlands as their only means of livelihood. They stated that the Appellant trespassed and was still trespassing on their farmlands by fencing and building thereon, by spillage of oil and other chemicals on the land and by the destruction of both their permanent and seasonal crops and that the trespass started in 1992 and they had been negotiating with the Appellants since them for the payment of adequate compensation but nothing yet had been agreed. They stated that the Appellant did not serve them with any notice of compulsory acquisition of their farmlands.

The Appellant filed an amended statement of defence and it denied the entire case of the first Respondent and stated that it did not at anytime trespass on the farmlands of the first Respondent and that it would challenge the locus standi of the first Respondent to commence the action. It stated that in order to fortify the security of its refinery in Kaduna, it applied for the strip of land in dispute in 1992 and that the land was duly acquired by the Kaduna State Government for its use as a buffer zone and that it paid full and adequate compensation through its Estate Agents, the second Respondent, and that it was not in a position to issue notice of compulsory acquisition. It stated that the suit was statute barred by the provisions of the Public Officers Protection Law and the NNPC Act as it was commenced in 1998.

The Appellant, with the leave of the lower Court, issued a Third Party Notice to the second Respondent and consequent on which the second Respondent filed a statement of defence. The second Respondent admitted that the named first Respondent owned a farmland in the area acquired as buffer zone around the Appellant’s refinery and River Romi Channel but denied that the named first Respondent represented other land owners in the area. It was its case that the Appellant did not trespass on the said parcel of land as the farmland was validly acquired for overriding public interest and for which the prescribed and laid down procedure for acquisition was strictly or substantially followed. It stated that a fair and adequate compensation in line with prevailing law at the time was ascertained to be paid to all the farm/land owners of the acquired land including the first Respondent and that enumeration was carried out in February, 1993 and seven thousand seven hundred and ninety five claimants were identified. It stated that compensation was paid and collected by seven thousand seven hundred and sixty three claimants while nineteen, including the named first Respondent, refused to collect their compensation on the ground that they would be deprived of continuing to farm in the area and twelve other claimants who had structures on the their lands rejected the compensation on the ground that the amount was inadequate. It set out the names of the thirty one claimants who refused to collect the compensation in the schedules to the statement of defence and stated that the monies were still in its possession.

The matter proceeded to trial and at the conclusion of the trial and after the final addresses of counsel, the lower Court entered judgment wherein it nullified the compulsory acquisition of the farmlands of the first Respondent for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 44 of the Constitution and Section 28 of the Land Use Act and it ordered thus:

i. The Defendant (Appellant) is hereby restrained by itself, its servants or agents or otherwise howsoever, from remaining on or continuing in occupation of the said lands and premises.