MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED v. HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS OBA YINUSA AYENI & ORS
(2019)LCN/13149(CA)
In The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 24th day of April, 2019
CA/L/292/2014
RATIO
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION: NATURE
The legislation is now firmly established that an motion in consultant capability is a category or consultant motion offering a method by which, the place a big group of individuals with frequent grievance and customary curiosity in a subject, a number of of them could sue or be sued as consultant/s of the remainder of the category for themselves and on behalf of all the opposite individuals. The legislation has advanced as a rule of comfort within the administration of justice which permits actions to be taken by representatives of individuals or communities constituting a category with joint and customary grievance and curiosity or proper to be claimed or defended which is useful to all of them. Within the case of Olatunji v. Registrar, Co-operative Society (1968) NMLR, 393 referred to within the case of Ofia v. Ejem (supra) additionally reported in (2006) 5 SC (Pt. III), 41, the Federal Supreme Courtroom said the necessities to be met for a correct structure of a consultant motion as follows: –
i. There have to be quite a few individuals within the case or the facet to be represented;
i. All these will need to have the identical curiosity within the swimsuit i.e their curiosity have to be joint and a number of other;
ii. All of them will need to have the identical grievance;
iii. The proposed consultant have to be one in every of them and
iv. The reduction sought have to be in its nature useful to all of the particular person being represented.?
See additionally NNPC v. Sele (2004) ALL FWLR (223) 1859, Idise v. Williams Int. Ltd. (supra) (1995) 1 SCNJ, 120, Busari v. Oseni (1992) Four NWLR (237) 557, Durbar Resort v. Ityough (supra), Nkute v. Ndem (2009) LPELR-4632 (CA), Ayinde v. Akanji (1988) 1 SC, 106, (1988) ALLNLR, 59.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
COURTS AND PARTIES ARE BOUND BY ISSUES MADE OUT IN THE PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT
In legislation, save in acknowledged conditions, reminiscent of in respect of defect in jurisdiction, a trial Courtroom is confined to and events are certain by the problems made out by and within the pleadings and proof positioned earlier than it. See Skye Financial institution PLc v. Akinpelu (2010) 9 NWLR (1198) 179, Victino Fastened Odds Restricted v. Ojo (2010) eight NWLR (1197) 486, N.D.I.C. v. Vibelko Nigeria Restricted (2006) ALL FWLR (336) 386.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
DUTY OF THE COURT WHEN A PARTY RAISES AN IRRELEVANT ISSUE
The mere truth {that a} occasion raises such an irrelevant situation doesn’t impose a judicial obligation or obligation on a Courtroom to embark on the consideration and dedication of the difficulty on the advantage for the legislation is {that a} Courtroom is to restrict itself to the dedication of solely materials and related points that come up from the pleadings and proof earlier than it and never waste its valuable useful resource and really scarce judicial time on irrelevant points. Kotoye v. Saraki (1991) eight NWLR (211) 638, Edem v. Canon Balls Restricted (2005) 6 SC (Pt. II) 16.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
FINAL ADDRESS: LIMITATION TO A FINAL ADDRESS
It ought to be remembered {that a} remaining handle can’t increase, lengthen or make a brand new case exterior of the pleadings and proof adduced by the events upon which they based and predicated their respective circumstances earlier than the Courtroom. Last Addresses by Counsel in a case are designed to help the Courtroom in readily ascertaining the fabric and related factors arising within the case and the relevant legislation, to the problems in an effort to allow it arrive at a simply resolution. Last Addresses are merely to state briefly, concisely and exactly, the related details, the problems, factors and relevant ideas of legislation required for the dedication of the case, on the advantage and in substantial justice by the Courtroom. Last Addresses can’t add to or subtract from the circumstances introduced by the events of their respective pleadings and proof and so are not any substitute for pleadings or cogent and credible proof proferred by the events on the problems which come up for dedication in a case. See Niger Building Restricted v. Okugbeni (1989) Four NWLR (1967) 787, R.E.A.N. v. Aswani iles Industries Restricted (1991) 2 NWLR (176) 639, Ugorji v. Onwuka (1994) Four NWLR (337) 226, Okefi v. Ogu (1996) 2 NWLR (432) 603, Ishola v. Ajiboye (1998) 1 NWLR (512) 71, UBN Plc. v. Ayodare & Sons Nigeria Restricted (2007) 4-5 SC, 42, Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji (2008) 1 SC (Pt. III) 263. This place explains why the legislation is that circumstances are usually not determined, received or misplaced on addresses by Counsel, however on credible and enough proof adduced by the events. Ogunsanya v. The State (2011) 6 MJSC (Pt. 1), 24, BFI Group Corporated v. BPE (2012) 6-7 MJSC (Pt. II) 124, NNB, Plc v. Owie (2010) LPELR-4591 (CA) Obasuyi v. Enterprise Ventures Restricted (2000) 5 NWLR (656) 668 @ 690.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
REPRESENTATIVE ACTION: LACK OF LEAVE TO SUE IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY DOES NOT AFFECT THE COMPETENCE OF THE SUIT
Perharps, I ought to level out that whether or not or not depart was granted for a celebration to sue in a consultant capability doesn’t go to the competence of the swimsuit or motion because the competence of such an motion primarily relies on the existence or in any other case of frequent grievance, frequent curiosity and useful nature of the reliefs to all of the claimants, that are issues of truth. See Nta v. Anigbo (1972) 1 ALL NLR, 74, Wiri v. Wuche (1980) 1-2 SC 1 @ 32 cited in Amida v. Oshoboja (1984) LPELR-463 (SC), Order 9, Rule 12(1) of the Decrease Courtroom Guidelines, 2009, Otapo v. Sunmonu (1987) 2 NWLR (1958) 587, Anabaronye v. Nwakaihe (1997) 1 NWLR (482) 514, (97) I SCNJ, 161.PER MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice of The Courtroom of Enchantment of Nigeria
Between
MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED Appellant(s)
AND
1. HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS OBA YINUSA AYENI
(Onisiwo of Abagbo & Tomoro)
2. CHIEF RASHIDI OLUSESI
3. ALHAJI KAMORU ALABI
4. CHIEF OWOILE ODOFIN
5. ALHAJI TAJUDEEN AROMIRE
6. CHIEF NURUDEEN IDOWU
7. CHIEF ABIODUN OWOEYE
(suing for themselves and on behalf of the members of abagbo, Ebute-Oko, Agala, Takwa-Bay, Isale-Eko, Tomoro, Ifako, Okun Ayo, Oko Ata, Ebute Ikate, Sabo Kogi, Igbonla, Agbojedo, Ilu Tuntun Ogogoro villages & different affected villages or communities in Eti-Osa Native Govt. Space of Lagos State) Respondent(s)
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Main Judgment): This attraction is towards the choice of the Federal Excessive Courtroom, sitting at Lagos (Decrease Courtroom) delivered on 26th November, 2013 by which the Respondents claims in Go well with No. FHC/L/1344/2003 have been granted towards the Appellant. The claims arose from alleged influence of the Oil Spill from the Appellants pipe line at Eket in Akwa Ibom State, on the Respondents? communities in Eti-Osa Native Authorities Space of Lagos State.
From the 9 (9) grounds contained on the Discover of Enchantment dated 19th February, 2014, 4 (4) points are set out for dedication within the Appellants transient filed on the 10th December, 2015, deemed on third June, 2016 as follows:
i. Whether or not the Realized trial Decide was proper in holding that the difficulty of the Go well with being commenced in consultant capability is a hypothetical situation which didn’t come up from the pleadings earlier than the Courtroom and that the swimsuit was competent for being correctly commenced in a consultant capability (Grounds 1 and a pair of).
ii. Whether or not the trial Decide rightly relied on proof of PW1, PW2 in addition to
1
Exhibit “P2” which incorporates the Valuation Report ready by the Agency of Alafia & Co, Property Surveyor & Valuers when not one of the consultants from Alafia & Co who ready the Report was referred to as to determine, tender and testify on the mentioned Valuation Report on the premise of which the Respondents’ declare of N663,858,075.00 was primarily based and granted? (Grounds 5 and seven).
iii. Whether or not from the pleadings and the proof adduced earlier than the trial Courtroom, the trial Decide might rightly maintain as he did that the Defendant admitted that the communities inhabited by the Respondents have been impacted by the oil spill from the Appellant’s facility within the offshore of Akwa Ibom State. (Grounds 3, Four and 6).
iv. Whether or not the award of the sum of N186,141,925.00 (One Hundred and Eighty Six Million, One Hundred and Forty One Thousand, 9 Hundred and Twenty 5 Naira) as basic damages and the sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) as value of the motion might be justified within the circumstance of this case. (Grounds eight and 9)?
The problems are mentioned to come up for resolution within the attraction with a slight formulation of situation 1, within the Respondents?
2
transient filed on 12th January, 2017, deemed on 21st March, 2018.
Because the points are the identical, the attraction could be thought of on the premise of the formulation by the Appellant.
Appellants Submissions:
It’s submitted that the Decrease Courtroom erred in legislation to have said that the Appellants situation difficult the competence of the swimsuit on floor that it was not correctly commenced by means of consultant motion, was one exterior pleading and proof of the events. Realized Counsel for the Appellant mentioned the difficulty of whether or not an motion was correctly or competently commenced by means of consultant motion will be raised earlier than trial or within the remaining addresses on the finish of trial and is often decided by the pleadings and proof positioned earlier than the trial Courtroom. In response to him, the legislation is established {that a} occasion suing in a consultant capability should make an endorsement to that impact to point that capability, then present in each his pleadings and proof that he has the appropriate to sue in that capability and that the claims are such that may be established in a consultant capability. Oseni v. Dawodu (1994) Four NWLR (339) 390 and
3
SPDCN Restricted v. Edamkue (2009) 14 NWLR (1160 1 @ 24-7 have been cited in assist of the submission and it’s maintained that Respondents? motion was endorsed as one in consultant motion and the depart granted by the Decrease Courtroom for the Respondents to sue in a consultant capability together with the proof of PW2, exhibits clearly that the difficulty raised by the Appellant arose from the case introduced by the events in pleadings and proof. The holding by the Decrease Courtroom at web page 2876 on the difficulty was additionally referred to and it’s argued that the Appellant?s situation is just not hypothetical, however a dwell situation raised from the pleadings and proof of the events.
It’s then contended that Decrease Courtroom failed to contemplate the difficulty on the advantage and that for the reason that Respondents had assorted curiosity and ranging property like livestock, fishing supplies allegedly broken by the oil spill, the pursuits weren’t frequent because the grievances are totally different for the reason that harm suffered by every plaintiff was totally different. Counsel additional argued that for the reason that claims by the Respondents are joint for his or her respective property and basic damages for negligence, they can not declare joint
4
reliefs for separate breach of obligation or negligence for every of them; citing Idise v. Williams Int. Restricted referred to within the Last Tackle earlier than the Decrease Courtroom.
Counting on Ofia v. Ejem (2006) 11 NWLR (992) 652 and Adediran v. Interland Transport Restricted (1991) 9 NWLR (214) 155, he submitted that the depart of Courtroom to sue in a consultant capability doesn’t imply {that a} swimsuit was correctly instituted in such capability as the difficulty is to be decided from the pleadings and proof of the claimants earlier than the Courtroom.
It’s maintained that there is no such thing as a frequent curiosity or grievance within the claims by the Respondents for various property which have been private to every of them; citing the proof of the 2 (2) witness referred to as by the Respondents.
?As well as, it’s argued additional, citing paragraph 14 of the Assertion on Oath of PW2, that for the reason that Appellant had admittedly paid some folks or residents of a few of the villages or communities in query, the Respondents couldn’t convey an motion in a consultant capability on behalf of these villages or communities. Counsel mentioned the discovering by the Decrease Courtroom that the Respondents? communities
5
are by the ocean shore, they’re fishermen, they breed livestock and that their ingesting water was additionally affected by the oil spill, was not borne out by the proof earlier than it. The circumstances of Ivienagbor v. Bazuaye (1999) 9 NWLR (620) 552 @ 561 and Buhari v. INEC (2008) Four NWLR (1078) 546 have been cited and the Courtroom is urged to resolve the difficulty in Appellant?s favour.
On situation 2, it’s submitted that the Decrease Courtroom failed to contemplate the proof of the Appellant and solely relied on t
