Seismograph Services Nig. Ltd. V. Michael Oshie & Ors. (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D), J.C.A:

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Justice Delta State, delivered by Justice I. E. Ogbodu sitting at Ogwashi-Uku, which Judgment was delivered on the 8th of March 2000.

The action was instituted at High Court Oleh Delta State, upon the transfer of the Judge to Orerokpe High Court, the trial Judge continued with the Case following an assignment order from the Chief Judge of the State. Judgment was finally delivered while the Judge was sitting at Ugwashi-Uku High Court.

The Respondents at the trial Court filed a claim against the Appellant in their further amended Statement of Claim, claiming as follows:

The sum of N1,648,270:00 as fair and adequate compensation or as per their writ of summons or In the alternative, the sum of N1,308,270:00 for the Juju shrines, loss of earnings from shrines and crops and economic trees and an order of the Honourable court directing the Defendant to repair, reseal or rehabilitate the plaintiffs, aforesaid two private roads to the plaintiffs satisfaction.

The Appellant is a Seismic/Geophysical Limited Liability Company that carries out Seismic Surveys of oil blocks and gathers seismic data in search of hydrocarbon reserves. The Cause of action arose out of the Seismic activities of the Appellant at Ellu/Ovode bush in Ellu town in Isoko North Local Government Area of Delta State which Seismic activities of the Appellant was said to have destroyed, desecrated and polluted the Respondents’ crops, farm land, Juju shrines, two private roads among others.

The Appellant denied all the allegations contained in the Claim of the Respondents by its amended statement of defence.

The Court delivered its Judgment on the 8th of March 2000 in favour of the Respondents, and awarded the Sum of One Million, Six Hundred and forty-Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Seventy Naira (N1,648,270:00) as fair and adequate compensation for damages allegedly caused to the Respondents’ properties by the Appellant.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court, the Appellant now appealed to this Court on Four grounds of appeal but later abandoned grounds 2 and 3. The said grounds which is contained in their notice and grounds of Appeal without their particulars read:

GROUND 1:

The learned trial Judge failed to draw a distinction between the Law applicable to a Cause of action and the Law applicable to the issue of jurisdiction.

GROUND 2:

The learned trial Judge erred in law when he excluded and or failed to evaluate the evidence of DW2 and DW3.

GROUND 3: