The Shell Petroleum Development Company Of Nigeria Limited V. Abel Isaiah & Ors (2001)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED, J.S.C.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal Port Harcourt Division, in which it affirmed the judgment of the High Court. River State, sitting at Isiokpo. The plaintiffs, who are respondents in this appeal, claimed from the defendant (appellant in this appeal) for the following reliefs:

“(a) The sum of N22 million being fair and reasonable compensation due and payable to the plaintiffs by the defendant for the permanent damage and loss to the plaintiffs’ plant. marine and domestic life which was caused by the defendant’s oil exploration activities whereby the defendant’s oil pipes were caused by the defendant to open up in 1988 and caused extensive oil spillage and pollution which said pollution has remained continuous at the plaintiffs’ “Miniabia” land and water forest swampland at Omuoda, Aluu, within the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court OR in the alternative.

(b) The sum of N22 million being damages for negligence committed by the defendant through its servants or agents when they negligently allowed crude oil to spill and pollute extensively the plaintiffs’ “Miniabia” land and swampland at Omuoda Aluu aforesaid OR in the alternative.

(c) The sum of N22 million being damages sustained by the plaintiffs through the acts or omissions of the defendant under the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher:”

The facts of this case as given by the respondents is narrated as follows: In July, 1988 an old tree fell on the appellant’s oil pipeline and indented it, thereby obstructing the free flow of crude oil. The oil pipeline was owned and controlled by the appellant and ran across the respondents swamp land and surrounding farmlands. The appellant engaged the services of a contractor to repair the dented pipeline. In the cause of the repairs, crude oil freely spilled onto the respondents’ swampland. The spillage quickly spread over the respondents’ communally owned “Miniabia” swampland and polluted the surrounding farmlands, streams and fishponds.

Pleadings were called and delivered. Evidence was given by both sides and at the end of the hearing the learned trial Judge in a considered judgment, awarded N22 million being the respondents’ claim for the damage and loss caused to the respondents by the appellant’s oil exploration activities.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court the appellant appealed Unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal. The appellant has now come before the Supreme Court contesting the decision of the court below. The appellant identified the following issues for the determination of the appeal.

“(1) Was the court below right in holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case

(2) Was the court below right in upholding the finding of the trial court that the appellant did not construct an oil trap before replacing the dented portion of the pipeline

(3) Was the court below right in upholding the finding of the trial court that there was in fact a massive spillage of crude oil onto the respondents farmlands, swamps, streams and fish ponds from the appellant’s pipeline

(4) Were the damages confirmed by the court below a proper estimate of the losses suffered by the respondents if there was in fact pollution as alleged by them

(5) Was the court below right in its decision that there was no misjoinder of parties and/or causes of action”

Although some issues which the respondents formulated are similar to those identified by the appellant 1 will reproduce the respondents’ issues for ease of reference to them. The respondents formulated the following issues for the determination of the appeal.