Oronto Douglas V. Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd. & Ors (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUSDAPHER, J.C.A. 

The plaintiff now appellant is an activist in the protection of the environment. He is actively involved in the protection of the environmental rights promotion of waste management and generally safe and sustainable environment. He claims to be a native of the Niger Delta where there are large deposits of oil and gas. The respondents were jointly engaged in a project for the production of liquefied natural gas. For the project to take off the respondents are required to do preliminary studies on the impact of the project on the environment. They are required to comply with the provisions of Environmental Impact Assessment Decree No. 86 of 1992. The appellant was not satisfied that the respondents had satisfactorily adhered to the provisions of the Decree hence he took an action in the Federal High Court against the respondents and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. In the course of the action, he discontinued the claim against the agency.

The appellant simultaneously filed the writ or summons with an originating summons. The claim in the writ of summons are for declaration and injunction restraining the respondents from continuing on and/or carrying on with the liquefied Natural Gas project until a proper environmental impact assessment has been conducted strictly in accordance with the terms of the Decree aforesaid. In the originating summons the appellant submitted three questions for determination.

The appellant attached to the originating summons statement of facts and an affidavit verifying the statement. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents filed notices of preliminary objection contending in the main the appellant’s actions are incompetent in that the appellant lacks the requisite locus standi and that the mode of the commencement of the appellant’s action is procedurally defective.

Arguments were heard by the trial Judge on the preliminary objection and in his ruling delivered on the 17th day of February, 1997, the trial judge. Belgore, CJ. struck out the appellant’s claim on the ground that the procedure adopted was “confused” and also on the ground that the appellant has no legal standing to prosecute the action. It is against this decision that the appellant has filed this appeal. The notice of appeal contains three grounds which read thus.

“1. The learned trial Judge was wrong when he held that

‘The claim is baseless, the plaintiff shows no prima facie evidence that his right was affected nor any direct injury caused him. Foremore, since there was no personal right of the plaintiff infringed nor has he shown any injury suffered if he suffered anything at all, more than the generality of the people.” and thereby reached as incorrect decision.

Particulars of error

(a) The Appellant clearly established sufficient personal interest as a member of the community that alleged environmental pollution against the Respondents.

(b) The Appellant showed that the activities of the Respondents posed environmental danger to him and his community.

(c) The Appellant has also conferred by Statute on him an interest in the subject matter of the litigation (Section 7 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Decree of 1992).

(d) Standing to sue in Nigeria is today based on the doctrine of sufficient interest and no longer the narrow principle of pure personal interest The Appellant established an overwhelming case of sufficient interest.

II. The learned trial Judge was wrong to hold that the action of the Appellant was frivolous because of an alleged mix up in the Originating processes.

Particulars of Error