Shell Pet. Dev. Co. Of Nig. Plc. V. Stephen Dino & Ors. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MUHAMMAD J.C.A.

This appeal relates to the decision of the Rivers State High Court, Coram ODILI J, (as she then was) pertaining suits No.PHC/983/94, PHC/985/94 and PHC/986/94 commenced severally by the respondents herein against the appellant. By their respective writs, the respondents being the plaintiffs claimed against the appellant, the defendant at the lower court, a cumulative sum of three million Naira each, as damages for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and assault and battery.

From their pleadings and evidence, respondents’ case is that they are employees of Tidex Nigeria Ltd a company that carries out the business of Marine transportation of goods and equipment for the oil industry including the appellant herein. Respondents are crew of M. V. Beef Master, a tug owned by their employer. Tidex Nigeria Ltd, an independent contractor has been engaged by the appellant to transport goods and equipment to its swamp locations from its base at Kidney Island.

On 17th February 1994, the respondents set out from Kidney Island, in their employer’s tugboat, for sea Rex 12 a rig belonging to the appellant. Respondents were to deliver potable water that had been loaded on their tugboat to appellant’s rig at Sea Rex 12. On arrival at sea Rex 12, a drilling superintendent of the appellant enquired from the respondents drilling chemicals that had allegedly been loaded in the tugboat for delivery to Sea Rex 12 as well. Respondent who denied having knowledge of the drilling chemicals were subsequently handed over by the drilling superintendent to one Clement Ukenezie. The latter, a supernumerary police officer working for the appellant, effected the arrest of the respondents. Appellant facilitated the conveyance of the respondents to its premises at Rumuomasi, Port Harcourt where they were tortured, maltreated and intimidated by “appellant’s police” and other security personnel. Appellants were subsequently arraigned in charge No. PMC/163C/94 for conspiracy and stealing. Their arraignment, trial and eventual discharge, at the Magistrate Court 5 Port Harcourt form the basis of respondents claim at the lower court. Thereat, they averred that the personnel who effected their arrest, arraignment and trial were employees of the appellant. Appellant, they alleged should be held vicariously liable for the acts of the supernumerary police being appellant’s private police force.

Appellant’s case is a total denial of respondents claim: that it did not order the arrest of the respondents; that respondents arrest was effected by the supernumerary police officers attached to appellant’s company; that appellant is not liable for the acts of the police officers who being members of the Nigeria Police Force are totally independent of the appellant.

In its judgment, particularly at pages 55 of the record of appeal, the lower court decided that the supernumerary police officers that arrested and prosecuted the respondents belong to appellant’s private police force. The court also held appellant vicariously liable for the conduct of its private police force. The court’s decision reads inter alia thus: –

“The claims of each of the four plaintiffs are based on false imprisonment, assault and battery, malicious prosecution and they led evidence in that regard respectively. The defence forward a stance that the plaintiffs stole the chemicals of the defendant and they merely reported to the Nigeria Police Force who were carrying out their lawful duties in arresting, detaining, charging and prosecuting the plaintiff; before a magistrate and so the defendant cannot be liable for the claims of the plaintiffs.

The main issue upon which the whole claim rests is whether the supernumerary police are police under the management and control of the Inspector General of Police or not. The answer to the question has not been difficult for me to answer in view of my having had privilege of serving as a magistrate for about 5 years in the Elimgbu magistrate district in which jurisdiction Shell Industrial and Residential Area are and in regular course of work interacted with the Shell Police in court. This court has judicial notice of the fact that the Shell Police operates in criminal matters involving shell properly and no more… In practice they are the internal security organization of Shell PDC, only they were properly trained in the Nigeria Police College and wear police uniform. They never get transferred from shell police to any other police duty…. Since the shell police who carried out these acts were agents or servants of Shell PDC, the defendant is vicariously liable for their acts.”

(Italics supplied for emphasis)

The defendant at the lower court being dissatisfied with the above decision has appealed against it on nine grounds. Briefs of argument have been filed and exchanged by parties to the appeal. Same were adopted and relied upon at the hearing of the appeal.

The appellant distilled four issues form its nine grounds of appeal as having arisen for the determination of the appeal. The issues read:-

(1) “Whether, having regard to the relevant statutes and the evidence before the trial court, the defendant is vicariously liable for the alleged torts of the supernumerary Police (or Spy Police), committed while acting within or outside the scope of its statutory power.

(2) Whether the appellant was properly held to be vicariously liable for the alleged torts of the Supernumerary police, which was not joined as a party to the proceedings

(3) Whether the tort of the false imprisonment, assault and battery, and of malicious prosecution were proved against shell by the plaintiffs.