Blog

Eric IKHILAE, Abuja

The Supreme Court  yesterday  dismissed an application by Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited seeking to set aside a N17billion judgment given against it on January 11, 2019 over a 1970  oil spill in a community in Rivers State.

A five-man panel of the Supreme Court in a  unanimous   ruling  dismissed the Shell application as lacking merit.

Shell,in a swift reaction ,yesterday,denied responsibility for the spill,insisting that it was caused by ‘third parties’ during the Nigerian civil war.

Justice Centus Nweze wrote  the lead ruling in the case, marked: SC/731/2017, which was read by Justice Samuel Osuji.

The apex court  agreed with the respondents, Ejama-Ebubu in Tai Eleme Local Government Area of Rivers, that Shell’s application was an invitation to the court to overrule itself.

Justice Nweze said after a thorough examination of the briefs filed   by parties he elected to uphold the preliminary objection raised by the respondents (victims of the oil spill, led by Chief Isaac Osaro Agbara).

He, therefore dismissed the application and ordered parties to bear their respective costs.

The Supreme Court had, in a ruling on January 11, 2019 dismissed the appeal by Shell against an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal on a June 14, 2010 judgment of the Federal High Court, which awarded damages against the oil company in an oil spill at Ejama-Ebubu in Tai Eleme Local Government Area of Rivers State.

Arguing the preliminary objection on September 22, respondents’ lawyer, Lucius Nwosu (SAN), queried the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain Shell’s application, which he said was intended to make the apex court sit on an appeal over its decision.

Nwosu contended that Shell’s application was an abuse of court process because there was no longer a pending appeal on which it wanted the court to act.

He noted that, on learning about Shell’s fresh application, his clients wrote the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) to enquire about the status of the oil company’s appeal.

Nwosu said in a reply, dated February 14,  the CJN’s response showed that Shell’s appeal “is a spent appeal”.

Nwosu queried: “If the CJN has said the appeal is spent, how can the same appellant come and revive the spent appeal?”

The lawyer, who said his clients had taken steps to execute the judgment, added that the same Shell, which was reluctant to compensate victims of its oil spills in Nigeria, had paid about $206 million damages in similar circumstance in Mexico.

He regretted that Shell was unwilling to abide by the decision of Nigeria’s apex court after subjecting the victims to over 30 years of strenuous litigation in courts across the country.

Reacting to the judgment yesterday, Nwosu hailed the Supreme Court for protecting the dignity and integrity of the nation’s judiciary by its decision, despite alleged moves by Shell to ridicule it and continue to subject the victims to hardship.

“They (Shell and its collaborators) have tortured the people of Ejama-Ebubu for the past 31 years, deploying the best of lawyers they can find, who are very influential within the judicial circle.”

Nwosu, who noted that the judgment sum, “as at today, with the interest running, is in the neighbourhood of N182b.”

He expressed displeasure at the alleged plot by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) to frustrate the execution of a garnishee order absolute got against the account of First Bank by the victims/judgment creditors in their bid to execute the judgment.

Shell:Spill caused by third parties

Reacting to the court’s ruling, Shell denied responsibility for the spill.

It said: “This spill was caused by third parties during the Nigerian civil war, a challenging period which resulted in significant damage to oil and gas infrastructure in the region.

“While SPDC does not accept responsibility for these spills, the affected sites in the Ebubu community were fully remediated.

“The claimants have, at their own admission in court, materially miscalculated and overstated the value of the award previously sought in this case.

“The ruling of the Supreme Court did not decide liability or the size of the award, which remains in dispute in other ongoing court proceedings.

“It is our position that any attempt to enforce payment should not be permitted. It is regrettable that the legal process in this case has focused for so long on procedural issues and not the merits of the case. We have always maintained that we are ready to defend this case based on the available facts”.