SPDC (NIG) LTD v. Oruambo & Ors (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

ABDU ABOKI, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, delivered on the 13th January, 2011.

By a Writ of Summons, dated and filed on the 8th of October, 1999, at the High Court of Justice, Port Harcourt, the 1st – 9th Respondents, as Plaintiffs, sought against the Appellant, the 10th and 11th Respondents, (as 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively), the following reliefs:

i. A declaration that the Defendants, especially the 1st Defendant has no right to effect compensation payment to any person or group of persons, with respect to the Gas Gathering Associated Pipeline Project Structural Assessment which assessment took place on the 24th – 28th days of February, 1999 at Cawthorne Channels 1, 2 and 3, along New Calabar River in Bakana Town of Degema Local Government Area of Rivers State, when the claims assessed for the Plaintiffs on that day were all removed from those to be compensated.

​ii. A declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to be compensated at the same time with all the individual claimants in respect of the GAS GATHERING ASSOCIATED PIPELINE PROJECT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT which ASSESSMENT took place on 24th-28th days of February, 1999 At CAWTHORNE CHANNELS 1, 2 AND 3 along New CALABAR RIVER in BAIGNA TOWN of DEGEMA Local Government Area of Rivers State.

iii. Furthermore, an order of this Honourable Court that the Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation in the following orders:
a. 1st Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of N20,500,000.00 (Twenty Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only.
b. 2nd Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of N12,000,000.00 (twelve Million Naira) only.
c. 3rd Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only.
d. The 4th Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only.
e. The 5th Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only.
f. The 6th Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only.
g. The 7th Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only.
h. The 8th Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of N10,000,000.00 Ten Million Naira) only.
i. The 9th Plaintiff is entitled to the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only.

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants, (the present 10th and 11th Respondents), were presented in the statement of claim and sued, as “agents of the 1st Defendant” and that they “specialize in damage assessment, survey activities” and that between 24th and 28th days of February, 1999 they carried out evaluation or assessment of all property affected by the said Associated Gas Gathering Project at Cawthorne Channels 1, 2 and 3 along New Calabar River in Bakana Local Government Area at the instance of the 1st Defendant, the Appellant. That their “properties and that of the various claimants were all assessed.”

That notwithstanding the fact that during field assessment exercise by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, during which their respective properties were identified, “their names were removed from the list deliberately.” And that “they are entitled to be compensated by way of compensation payment just like any other person or group of persons who were assessed that day.”
​
In opposition to the claim, the Appellant in its statement of defence, categorically denied every material allegation in the statement of claim. The Appellant averred that it lawfully acquired land in some communities including Bakana, in order to establish the Gas Project. The Appellant maintained that it duly paid compensation to all the communities, including Bakana and individuals whose properties were affected by the acquisition.

In support of their case, the 1st – 9th Respondents called a lone witness, the 1st Respondent, and tendered Exhibits A – A8. The Appellant called two witnesses, who stated in the main, that the 1st–9th Respondents do not have any specific right over the property acquired by the Appellant, to entitle them to compensation. The 10th and 11th Respondents filed no processes.

In his reserved judgment, delivered on 13th June, 2003, the learned trial Judge found for the 1st – 9th Respondents, holding, that:-
“It is my candid view that the plaintiffs have established their case which accordingly succeeds. Each Plaintiff is therefore entitled to his claim as contained in Exhibits ‘A – A8’, the total claim which is also contained in Exhibits ‘A – A8’.”
​
The Appellant is aggrieved by this decision, and appealed to the Court below. In a unanimous judgment, the Court below dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the decision of the trial Court.

The Appellant is still aggrieved, hence its further appeal to this Court. The 2nd further Amended Notice of Appeal, filed on the 4th of March, 2022, but deemed filed on the 5th of April 2022, contains Eleven (11) Grounds of Appeal.

In line with the extant Rules of this Court, parties filed and exchanged their briefs of arguments, which they adopted in support of their respective views, at the hearing of the appeal on the 5th of April, 2022.

Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant adopted and relied on the Amended Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated and filed on the 4th of March, 2022, and the Appellant’s Reply Brief of Arguments, deemed filed on the 5th of April, in urging this Court to allow the appeal. He donated four issues for this Court’s determination. They are:

1. Whether the Court below was right to hold that the trial Court had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and determine the 1st – 9th Respondents’ Suit?
2. Whether the 1st–9th Respondents’ Suit was/is bad for misjoinder of

parties and/or misjoinder of causes of action?