The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited V. Helleluja Fishermen Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Limited (2001)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OGEBE, J.C.A.

The respondent sued the appellant in the High Court of Rivers State in a writ of summons dated 14th day of December, 1990 as follows: “The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for the sum of One Hundred and Sixty-Two Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Naira (N162,800,000.00) being and representing special and general damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of crude oil spillage from the defendant’s crude oil well and/or other oil installations in or near Bukuma in the Degema Local Government Area of Rivers State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court on or about the 12th September, 1990 which extensively polluted the plaintiff’s fish ponds, fishing nets, and the creeks and rivers wherein the plaintiff carries on its large scale commercial and modern fishing and fish farming.”

Issues were joined by the parties by the filing of pleadings and amendments thereof. During the course of trial in the lower court the appellant objected to the jurisdiction of the trial court on the ground that the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993 amended section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution and vested exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters arising from mines and minerals (including oil fields, mining, geological surveys and natural gas). The State High Court ruled that it had jurisdiction. The parties gave evidence and the trial court in its judgment found the appellant liable and awarded to the respondent a total sum of N21,995,000.00 special and general damages. The appellant was dissatisfied with this judgment and appealed to this court.

The learned senior counsel for the appellant Chief Akinjide (SAN), in an amended brief of argument formulated two issues for determination as follows:

“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that it is the High Court of the State and not the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction to try and determine the claims before him, particularly, having regard to the provisions of Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993.

2. Whether the plaintiff/respondent proved, and was therefore entitled to the special and general damages awarded in its favour by the learned trial Judge.”

The respondent was also not satisfied with the quantum of damages awarded and cross-appealed and the learned counsel for it, Chief J.L.D. Dagogo in an amended respondent’s brief/cross-appellant’s brief identified two issues for determination in the main appeal as follows:

“1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that it is the High Court of the State and not the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction to try and determine the claims before him, particularly, having regard to the provisions of Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993.

2. Whether the plaintiff/respondent proved, and was therefore entitled to the special and general damages awarded in its favour by the learned trial Judge.”

In the cross-appeal he also identified two issues for determination thus:

“1. Was the learned trial Judge right and justified in refusing to award the special damages for loss of fishing rights in the polluted creeks and swamps, after finding the defendant liable to the plaintiff in negligence for the crude oil pollution of the creeks and swamps.

2. Was the N14.545m awarded as general damages not manifestly too low and was it right to include special damages for loss of fishing rights, having regard to the evidence adduced at the trial and in all the facts and circumstances of this case.”

The appellant filed appellant’s amended reply brief and cross-respondent amended brief.

In the course of argument of this appeal the Court drew the attention of learned counsel on both sides to the Federal High Court (Amendment) Decree No. 60 of 1991 and asked counsel on both sides to submit written briefs on the effect of that legislation on the issue of jurisdiction being canvassed in the appeal. The appellant filed a brief in this respect on the 31st day of May, 2001 while the respondent filed its own on the 1st of June, 2001.

The main argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that by virtue of the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993 which amended section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution, only the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear civil causes and matters arising from mines and minerals including (oil fields, mining, geological surveys and natural gas). He relied on the case of Barry & Ors v. Obi A. Eric & Ors. (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt 562) 404. He relied particularly on the recent unreported judgment of the Supreme Court SC 75/1997. The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd v. Abel Isaiah and Ors delivered on the 18th day of May, 2001; (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt.723) 168 in which the Supreme Court held that in the matter arising from oil spillage as in the present appeal only the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear it and not the State High Court. The Supreme Court took a look at Decree No. 107 of 1993 and Decree No. 60 of 1991 and held that the two decrees had the effect of removing jurisdiction from the State High Court to the Federal High Court.

The learned counsel for the respondent/cross-appellant in his reply submitted that both Decrees No. 107 of 1993 and 60 of 1991 were enacted after the cause of action and the filing of the suit in the present appeal and therefore they are inapplicable to the cause of action. He said that it is the law in force when the cause of action arose that will govern the determination of the action. He referred to the case of Agha v. I.G.P. & Ors (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt.524) 317.

It appears to me that the learned counsel for the respondent is confusing cause of action with jurisdiction of a court to hear a matter. There is no dispute whatsoever that a cause of action is governed by the prevailing law when the cause of action arose. See the cases of A.G. of the Federation v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt 618) 187 and Alese v. Aladetuyi (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt 403) 527.