SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR v. MR. JOHN ALLA & ORS (2013)

SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR v. MR. JOHN ALLA & ORS

(2013)LCN/6194(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 11th day of May, 2018

CA/PH/750/2013

JUSTICES

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED

2. SHELL NIGERIA EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY (NIGERIA) LIMITED Appellant(s)

AND

1. MR. JOHN ALLA
2. MR. CLEMENT EBIYEKON
3. MR. AZIBALA COUPLE
4. MR. IROU PATRICK
5. MADAM BETTY ALLA
(Suing for themselves and on behalf of Agge Palm Bush Community of Ekeremor Local Government Area of Bayelsa State) Respondent(s)

RATIO

A SIMPLE CLAIM CONCERNING ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION FOR LAND

In the case of Nkuma vs. Odili (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 313) 24, upon which the learned trial Judge declined to assume jurisdiction in the instant matter, the apex Court, per Oguntade, JSC. (as he then was), in his wisdom had enjoined that:
A simple claim concerning entitlement to compensation for land cannot be seen as one ?connected with or appertaining to mines and minerals including oil fields I think that appellant?s counsel has stretched beyond reasonable limit, the meaning to be ascribed to the expression ?connected with or appertaining to mines and minerals including oil fields? ?.
In the same vein, a mere demand by the respondents on the appellants to accord them recognition in order for the said respondents to benefit from the largesse of the appellants to their host communities, cannot be seen as a demand occasioned by reason of or connected with or tied to oil mining or exploration. Since the respondents? claim before the lower Court hinges on contractual obligations which are not seen to be ?tied to or connected with or appertaining to mines and minerals or geological survey or oil fields,? the learned trial Judge ought not to have assumed jurisdiction in the suit. Moreover, there is nothing in the said respondents? statement of claim to show that they were seeking the reliefs because of damages or injuries arising from oil spillage or pollution from mining operations or geological survey of the appellants. Rather, they were asking to be made partakers in their own right, of the benefits or entitlements accruable to the host communities of the appellants? EA Oil fields. It follows from all these that the learned trial Judge misconstrued the Supreme Court?s decision in Nkuma vs. Odili & Ors. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 313) 24, as it applies to the plaintiffs/respondents? claims as constituted. The facts and circumstances of the cases of MPIDI BARRY vs. ERIC (1998) 8 NWLR pt. 562, pg. 404; SPDC vs. MAXON (2001) 9 NWLR pt. 719, pg. 541; and SPDC vs. ISAIAH (2001) FWLR pt. 56, pg. 608 are indeed distinguishable from the current case. PER JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.

CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellants herein are appealing against the decision of the Federal High Court sitting in Yenagoa (hereinafter to be referred to as the trial/lower Court), presided over by Hon. Justice C. E. Archibong J., delivered on 16th January, 2013, in suit No. FHC/YNG/CS/19/2011.

The respondents who at the lower Court were the plaintiffs took out a specially endorsed writ of summons on 12th April, 2011 against the appellants being defendants thereat. In their statement of claim dated 12th April, 2011, particularly at paragraph 15 thereof, the respondents had sought thus against the appellants:
15. The plaintiffs desire to recover all that is due to them as a host community in the Shell EA Field. Wherefore the plaintiffs claim against the defendants as follows:
1. A DECLARATION that the plaintiffs (sic) community is an autonomous community duly registered with the Bayelsa State Government and is entitled to all the benefits, rights and privileges enjoyed by the Shell EA Field host communities.
2. AN ORDER directing the defendants to pay the sum

of ten million naira per annum to the plaintiffs (sic) community as money due to the plaintiffs (sic) community from the intelligence surveillance services contract from the year 2004 till the determination of this suit.
3. AN ORDER directing the defendants to employ a Community Liaison Officer to act as the link between the plaintiffs (sic) community and the defendants.
4. N10, 000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only being damages for the embarrassment and scorn suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the and (sic) defendants (sic) actions in this case.

Upon service of the processes on the appellants, they filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 2nd March, 2012 and filed 6th March, 2012 seeking a dismissal and/or striking out of the plaintiffs? suit for being incompetent. (See pages 18 ? 19 of the record of appeal). The parties filed and exchanged written addresses. In a considered ruling delivered 16th January, 2013, the learned trial Judge overruled the objection and assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the respondents? action. Aggrieved by this ruling, the appellants filed their Notice of appeal on 5th

July, 2013 pursuant to the leave of this Court regularizing same on 2nd July, 2013. (See pages 28 ? 31 of the record of appeal).

In compliance with the rules and practice of this Court the parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. The appellants? brief of argument dated and filed 9th June, 2016 but deemed properly filed and served on 4th December, 2017 as well as the appellants? reply brief dated and filed 17th October, 2016 and equally deemed properly filed and served on 4th December, 2017 were each settled by Jim E. Okodaso, Esq. The respondents? brief of argument dated 22nd July, 2016, filed 3rd August, 2016 and deemed properly filed and served on 4th December, 2017 was settled by Olu Ojujoh, Esq.

The appellants from their 2 grounds of appeal formulated the following sole issue for determination of the appeal:
Whether the trial Court was right in its interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court in NKUMA vs. ODILI & ORS. (2006) All FWLR (PT. 313) 24 as it applies to the plaintiffs? (respondents) averred facts and thereby came to a right decision when it held that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine

the plaintiffs? claim as constituted?

The respondents on their part donated the following sole issue as apt for determination of the appeal:
Whether in considering the provisions of Section 251 (1) (n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended and Section 7 (1) (n) of the Federal High Court Act as amended, the Federal High Court was right in holding that it is seized with jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.

I shall adopt the issue of the appellants in determining this appeal.

In arguing their issue, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge was wrong in ?its? (?) application of the ratio in the recent Supreme Court?s decision in Nkuma vs. Odili & Ors. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 313) 24, to the respondents? averred facts and this error misled him to assume jurisdiction to hear and determine respondents? action. Relying on the cases of Arabambi vs. Advance Beverages Ind. Ltd. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 295) 581 @ 597; Rinco Const. Co. Ltd. vs. Veepee Ind. (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 264) 816 @ 822; and Rhein Mass Und. Sec GMBH vs. Rivway Lines Ltd. (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt. 549) 265

, the learned counsel submitted that only the plaintiffs? claim as endorsed in the writ of summons and the facts averred in the statement of claim that should be examined for the purposes of establishing the plaintiffs? cause of action. Counsel contended that the learned trial Judge failed to tie his findings contained at page 25, lines 17-21 of the record of appeal, to the dispute which arose in the circumstances of the respondents? pleadings as giving rise to the cause of action and therefore wrong.

Counsel canvassed that the applicability of Section 251 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended to specific matters for the purposes of determining the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court must be examined in the light of the respondents? claim. He submitted that the resultant damages in the cases of MPIDI BARRY vs. ERIC (1998) 8 NWLR pt. 562, pg. 404; SPDC vs. MAXON (2001) 9 NWLR pt. 719, pg. 541; and SPDC vs. ISAIAH (2001) FWLR pt. 56, pg. 608, are intrinsically connected to injury caused by mining operations and are thus distinguishable from the instant

case. He urged on us to allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Court.

On the part of the respondents, learned counsel on their behalf while arguing the issue as distilled by them conceded that the plaintiff?s claim determines the jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear and determine a matter. He argued that paragraphs 8 and 10 of the respondents? statement of claim and the reliefs sought therein are all in line with Section 251 (1) (n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended thereby vesting the Federal High Court with the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Counsel contended that the respondents? action at the lower Court was as a result of the activities of the appellants ? operators of the EA Oil Field who refused to accord the respondents the same benefits, rights and privileges accorded other neighbouring host communities in the EA Oil Field. That if other host communities are paid compensation for oil pollution, award contracts and are employed by the appellants, the same thing should be done to the respondents? community. He relied on

SPDC vs. Maxon & Ors. supra to exclude the jurisdiction of the Rivers State High Court to adjudicate here. Learned counsel urged on us to dismiss the appellants? appeal for lack of merit.

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE
Whether the trial Court was right in its interpretation of the decision of the Supreme Court in NKUMA v. ODILI & ORS. (2006) All FWLR (PT. 313) 24 as it applies to the plaintiffs? (respondents) averred facts and thereby came to a right decision when it held that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiffs? claim as constituted?

It is trite that the jurisdiction of a trial Court is determined by the subject matter as borne out of the plaintiff?s statement of claim before it. I have done a composite reading of the respondents? statement of claim after which I found particularly paragraphs 6, 8 and 10 to be the melting-pot of their claim. The respondents had pleaded at the said paragraphs 6, 8, and 10 that:
6. The defendants (appellants) and the host communities signed a Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMoU) on the 9th day of March, 2007 in which certain rights and

privileges were accorded the host communities
7. ?.
8. The defendants have over the years refused to treat the plaintiffs (respondents) as an autonomous community by withholding benefits such as the employment of a Community Liaison Officer and awarding members of the plaintiffs? community the Intelligence Surveillance Services contract other EA Field host communities are benefitting from.
9. ?
10. The defendants? failure to treat the plaintiffs as an autonomous community encouraged other oil companies like Terraseis (Nig.) Ltd. of Water Front Gardens, Plot 1, Unit 14 Babafemi Osoba Crescent Off Admiralty Road Lekki Phase 1, Lagos (who relied on the Shell approved host communities list) to deny the plaintiffs? community benefits other host communities are currently enjoying in the area.

?Arising from the respondents? pleadings, is the obvious fact that it is the non-recognition by the appellants, of the Agge Palm Bush as an autonomous community for purposes of benefitting from the rights and privileges arising from the Global Memorandum of Understanding (GMoU) and

meant for the EA Oil Field?s hosts that yielded cause for the respondents? action. Because the respondents, holding out themselves to belong to a purported Agge Palm Bush Community, felt short-changed under the terms of the GMoU agreement. It was with this mind-set that they went to Court to seek recognition by the appellants, ostensibly as an autonomous community as well as the enforcement of the terms of the agreement in their favour. Under Section 251 (1) (n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended (the Constitution) it is provided thus:
251. ? (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil cases and matters?
(n) mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas);
See also Section 7 (1) (n) of the Federal High Court Act (as amended), Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which provides that:

The Federal High Court shall, to the exclusion of any other Court, exercise original jurisdiction to try civil causes and matters connected with or pertaining to mines and minerals.
The respondents? demand being for legal recognition of their purported community as well as a demand for payment of some accruable benefits/entitlements purportedly under the GMoU agreement, cannot by any stretch of imagination be equated with oil or mineral or mines or geological survey as envisaged by Section 251 (1)(n) of the Constitution. The agreement as entered into by the appellants with their host communities is outside the operation of the mines, or the oilfields or natural gas. The execution/enforcement of the agreement would not involve any excavation or drilling or geological survey of the soil as the case may be, hence it cannot be said to be tied to or connected with or appertaining to mines and minerals including oil fields operations or exploration. The agreement to my mind can be described as a mere social contract which could have even arisen where the appellants were in occupation of the land say for agricultural purposes or for the setting up of a health or

any other facility as the case maybe.
In the case of Nkuma vs. Odili (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 313) 24, upon which the learned trial Judge declined to assume jurisdiction in the instant matter, the apex Court, per Oguntade, JSC. (as he then was), in his wisdom had enjoined that:
A simple claim concerning entitlement to compensation for land cannot be seen as one ?connected with or appertaining to mines and minerals including oil fields I think that appellant?s counsel has stretched beyond reasonable limit, the meaning to be ascribed to the expression ?connected with or appertaining to mines and minerals including oil fields? ?.
In the same vein, a mere demand by the respondents on the appellants to accord them recognition in order for the said respondents to benefit from the largesse of the appellants to their host communities, cannot be seen as a demand occasioned by reason of or connected with or tied to oil mining or exploration. Since the respondents? claim before the lower Court hinges on contractual obligations which are not seen to be ?tied to or connected with or

appertaining to mines and minerals or geological survey or oil fields,? the learned trial Judge ought not to have assumed jurisdiction in the suit. Moreover, there is nothing in the said respondents? statement of claim to show that they were seeking the reliefs because of damages or injuries arising from oil spillage or pollution from mining operations or geological survey of the appellants. Rather, they were asking to be made partakers in their own right, of the benefits or entitlements accruable to the host communities of the appellants? EA Oil fields. It follows from all these that the learned trial Judge misconstrued the Supreme Court?s decision in Nkuma vs. Odili & Ors. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 313) 24, as it applies to the plaintiffs/respondents? claims as constituted. The facts and circumstances of the cases of MPIDI BARRY vs. ERIC (1998) 8 NWLR pt. 562, pg. 404; SPDC vs. MAXON (2001) 9 NWLR pt. 719, pg. 541; and SPDC vs. ISAIAH (2001) FWLR pt. 56, pg. 608 are indeed distinguishable from the current case. The sole issue is thus resolved in favour of the appellants and against the respondents.

?The appeal has merit and is therefore allowed.

This is to say that the ruling of the Federal High Court, sitting in Yenagoa and delivered on 16th January, 2013, is hereby set aside and suit No. FHC/YNG/CS/19/2011, struck out for want of jurisdiction.

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A.: My learned brother, CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO JCA gave me the opportunity of having a preview of the judgment. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion therein. I allow the appeal and abide by the consequential order.

?BITRUS GYARAZAMA SANGA, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading a draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO JCA. I agree and adopt the decision of my brother in the lead judgment that the claims of the respondents against the appellant as contained in paragraph 15 of their statement of claim dated 12/4/2011 is not connected with oil mining or exploration, it is a simple case of contractual obligation between the parties which is triable by the High Court and not the Federal High Court. The learned trial Judge was therefore wrong by assuming jurisdiction over the Respondents claims.

I join my brother in the lead judgment in upholding this appeal for being meritorious and set aside the ruling of the lower Court delivered on 16/1/2013. I also abide by the order as to cost.

Appearances:

Jim. E. Okodaso, Esq.For Appellant(s)

E. D. Joseph, Esq.For Respondent(s)

Appearances

Jim. E. Okodaso, Esq.For Appellant

AND

E. D. Joseph, Esq.For Respondent