Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Limited V. Chief Tigbara Edamkue & Ors (2009)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

F. OGBUAGU, J.S.C

At the trial court, there were two separate suits against the Defendant/Appellant. The first suit, was instituted by the 1st set of Plaintiffs/Respondents in Suit No. FHC/PH/84/94, while the second suit, was instituted by the 3rd set of Plaintiffs/Respondents in Suit No. FHC/PH/85/94. In both suits, the claims were/are for damages each of them suffered as a result of a serious explosion and spillage of crude oil from the Appellant’s Yorla Oil Field or station in the Khana Local Government Area of Ogoni land in Rivers State which occurred on the 31st July, 1994. Both suits were consolidated for trial by the trial court on 12th December, 1995. After hearing and addresses of the learned counsel for the parties, in my respectful view, the trial court, – Aina J. in a very well considered Judgment (spanning from pages 618 to 730 of the Records) delivered on 28th June, 1999, entered judgment in favour of the 1st and 3rd sets of Plaintiffs/Respondents. It/he granted their respective claims. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal which affirmed the said Judgment of the trial court. Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Division (hereinafter called the “court below”) delivered on 27th March, 2003 – per Akintan, JCA (as he then was), the Appellant has now, appealed to this Court.

I note that although the 2nd set of Plaintiffs were joined at their own instance by the trial court, the 1st set of Plaintiffs/Respondents, successfully, challenged the said joinder in an appeal to the court below which struck out their names. The decision striking out their names, is contained in the Judgment of the court below. The 2nd set of Plaintiffs therefore, are not a party to the instant appeal, as they have not appealed against the said decision of the court below striking out their names.

I also note that upon the dismissal of its appeal by the court below, the Appellant, pursuant to the Order of the court below that the Appellant should furnish a Bank Guarantee to secure the payment of the total judgment debt due to the Plaintiffs/Respondents in the event of the dismissal of its appeal to the court below, the Appellant, accordingly, furnished the Bank Guarantee from the Union Bank of Nigeria PLC. See pages 1216 to 1220 of the Records. Upon the dismissal of the said appeal, the Bank, duly paid the total judgment debt amounting to the sum of N225,806,601.00 to the Plaintiffs/Respondents. See the photo copy of the/its cheque dated 27th March, 2003 appearing at page 1222 of the Records.

The Appellant, in its/their Brief, have formulated four (4) issues for determination, namely,

“(i) Whether on the evidence before the Court in view of the fact that the Plaintiffs sued and claimed the authority so to do as representatives of the DUBORO Community in the first action and BAEN Community in the second action, it was proper for the trial Court to have entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs in each case;

(ii) Whether the Lower Court was right in finding that the Oil spillage which took place on 31st July,

1994, was as a result of the negligence, default or other wrongful action on the part of the Defendant/Appellant as contended by the Plaintiff/Respondent and not as a result of the deliberate act of an unknown person as contended by the Defendant/Appellant.

(iii) Whether the Lower Court was right in entering judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs when they had not established communal ownership of the asset injuriously affected by the spillage;

(iv) Whether there was credible evidence before the Court to sustain the award of damages by the Lower Court”.

[the underlining mine]

On its part, the 1st and 3rd sets of Plaintiffs/Respondents, have formulated two issues for determination. They read as follows:

“(1) Whether the Court of Appeal was justified in law when it held that the trial court had jurisdiction to amend the capacities in which the actions at the trial court were brought (grounds 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal).

(2) Whether the Court of Appeal was justified when it held that the Defendants/Appellants was liable for the claims of the Plaintiffs/Respondents under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor and or the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, ground 3 of the grounds of appeal”