Relief has finally come the way of some communities in the oil producing, who had hitherto been engaged in litigation against Shell Petroleum Development Company over the ownership of a vast landed property in Delta State.
The compensation was one of the requests the communities including Ofogbene, Ezon Burutu, Obotobo, Sokebolo, Ekeremor, Zion, Ezon and Ase placed before the Supreme Court of Nigeria for determination.
Besides, the apex’s court also awarded the sum of N500,000 to each of the respondents against the oil producing company, which lost the legal battle right from the trial court to the Supreme court.
The subject matter of this suit was all that piece or parcel of land lying and situate at Abacheke Egbema, Delta wherein lies the sensual oil well locations.
This appeal borders on tort and gave rise to issues of jurisdiction. The appeal was in respect of four consolidated actions, which were instituted by the plaintiffs herein seeking damages from Shell Development Company of Nigeria Limited for oil spillage.
The said suits Nos. W/16/83, W/17/83, W/72/83 and W/80/83 were instituted for and on behalf of Obotobo, Sokebolo, Ofogbene (Ezon Burutu) and Ekeremor Zion (Ezon Asa) communities respectively. The suits were consolidated by order of the then Bendel State High Court on 21 March, 1985/3/2015. At the end of the trial in which parties called witnesses, the trial court in its judgment in favour of the community members, awarded damages as follows N4,095,085.00, N13,278,306.00, N7,392,589.00 and N5,522,701.00.
Shell was dissatisfied and appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal, Benin City.
The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on dismissing the appeal. The appellant was still not satisfied and appealed to the Supreme Court.
In the appellant’s brief of argument, four issues were submitted for determination. They were whether the State High Court had jurisdiction to try the consolidated suits in the light of Decree No 59, Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree 1991, Decree No. 60 Federal High Court (Amended) Decree 1991, Decree No.16 Federal High Court (Amended) Decree1992 and/or Decree No.107 Constitution (Suspension and Modification) and whether the courts below erred in law in holding that the Minerals Act did not have impact on the plaintiffs claims.
Furthermore, the company also wanted the court to determine whether the courts below were right in holding that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur was available to the plaintiffs and whether the courts below were right in basing the damages awarded, when parts of the evidence had been adjudged to be hearsay and therefore inadmissible and worthless.
Claimants, now respondents on appeal had averred that he was an indigene of Abacheke Town in Ohaji Egbema Local Government Area of Delta State and the piece or parcel of land wherein lies defendant’s oil wells…. was an customary inheritance from his fore-fathers under the Egbema Native Law and Custom as applicable in Abacheke Egbema.
Claimant added that the ownership of the piece or parcels of land wherein lies defendant’s oil wells…. were not in dispute and have never been subject of any dispute with regards to its ownership as same belongs exclusively to claimant’s family.
Claimants said that defendant discovered crude oil in this land far back in 1958;
Claimant added that since 1958 when defendant entered their land, it never paid to them any lease, rent or acquisition compensation up till date of occupying the said hectares of land belonging to the claimant s family.
According to the respondents the appellant defendant had refused or neglected to recognize him as landlord and to grant him his entitlements as a host to the defendants who have been drilling a total of nine oil wells on claimants land since 1958 without any employment opportunity to his family or contract award.”
Accordingly, “I hold that the agreement of 18/12/89 created a new or fresh contractual relationship between the parties.”
A summary of the respondent’s case as pleaded was that, the appellant discovered oil on the respondents’ land in 1958, but had since refused or neglected to recognize him or grant him his entitlements as a host landlord. This resulted into the respondent blocking access to the oil wells of the appellant on the land, since peaceful approach by the respondent had failed. That was in 1989, and consequently the communities were charged to court for conduct likely to cause breach of peace.
Poised for amicable resolution, the appellant invited the respondent to a meeting on the 27th November 1989, where an agreement was reached to the effect that all the respondents’ entitlement and other perquisites would be paid him by the company. The appellant was however, not able to pay which culminated into several communications between the parties, the last being the one dated 7th October 2008.
Now, would it be right to contend, as done by the Appellant, that the period of limitation began to run from 18th December 1989 when the appellant agreed to pay, without delay, the merit claims and scholarship awards to the respondents.
The state of hostility therefore resurfaced in 1994 when the respondent wrote the appellant vide letter dated 27th July 1994, reminding the appellant of its promise to pay the merit claims. Again, the appellant wrote the respondent vide letter dated 14th August, 1995, wherein it admitted indebtedness to the communities.
There were other letters from the appellant to the respondents but specifically, in the letter dated 10th December 2003, the appellant referred to a letter by the respondent of 15th June 1999 and specifically stated that: “The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited has agreed for all your merit claim and farmlands/Oil wells payment; blockade for each of your merit claim, which was the sum of N300,000.00. Please S.P.D.C. Nig. Ltd will not delay any payment of your merit claim.”
Despite the acknowledgment of the debt it owes the respondent, the appellant deliberately failed or rather refused to pay and requested that the respondents be barred from further making his claim.
On appeal, the oil producing company asked the apex’s court to reverse the verdicts of the two lower courts, having contended that the respondents case was statute barred and therefore should be discountenanced.
But their lordships held otherwise, saying the earlier judgments were in order and therefore, could not be reversed.
In a judgment unanimously supported by their lordships, Justice Kumai Aka’ahs, who read the lead verdict said: “The concurrent findings of fact made by the two lower courts are not perverse. I find that the appeal totally lacks merit. It was fought principally on the assumption that Admiralty jurisdiction is exclusively vested on the Federal High Court and the consolidated suits, which were commenced in 1983 before the then Bendel State High Court ought to have abated after the promulgation of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree No. 59 of 1991, the Federal High Court (Amendment) Decrees No. 60 of 1991 and 16 of 1992 and the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993.
“The appeal is therefore dismissed in its entirety and I award cost of N500,000 to each set of respondents in the consolidated suits against the appellant”, his lordship ruled. The Guardian
