Before Their Lordships
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CLARA BATA OGUNBIYI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED
[DEFENDANT/APPELLANT]- Appellant
AND
1. CHIEF JOEL ANARO
2. YOUNG DUPELEWEI OMODOHAYE
3. ETIMINGBA FORCADOS
4. JOE TUBOTU
(For themselves and on behalf of the entire members of Ofogbene, Ezon Burutu Community)
(SUIT NO.W/72/83)
AND
1. CHIEF BEBEAPRE TUAGBAYE
2. MR. JOE EBA
3. MR. OVIE EZULU
(For themselves and on behalf of the Obotobo Community)
(SUIT NO.W/16/83)
AND
1. CHIEF TUAGHA DIRI
2. CHIEF SAMSON ALAYE
3. MR. GILBERT DOSE
(For themselves and on behalf of the entire Sokebolo Community)
(SUIT NO.W/17/83)
AND
1. CHIEF ODALI SUBAI
2. CHIEF OLOKPA NUMUNADE
3. MR. PERE DOLOBEBIOWEI
(For themselves and on behalf of the members of Ekeremor, Zion, Ezon Ase Community)
(SUIT NO.W/80/83)
[PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS]
AS CONSOLIDATED BY ORDER OF COURT OF 21/3/85
…………………….A…………………….
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): Four separate actions 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 21/3/85. At the end of the trial in which parties called witnesses, the trial court in a judgment delivered on 27th May, 1997 in favour of the Plaintiffs awarded damages as follows:-
1. Suit No. W/16/83 – N4,095,085.00
2. Suit No. W/17/83 – N13,278,306.00
3. Suit No. W/72/83 – N7,392,589.00
4. Suit No. W/80/83 – N5,522,701.00 The defendant was dissatisfied and appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal, Benin City in CA/8/255/97. The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 22nd May, 2000 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. The issues are as follows:-
1. Whether the State High Court had jurisdiction to try the consolidated suits herein 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) Decree 1993.
2. Whether the courts below erred in law in holding that the Minerals Act did not have impact on the plaintiffs claims (Ground 2 particular 5).
3. Whether the courts below were right in holding that the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur was available to the Plaintiffs herein.
4. Whether the courts below were right in basing the damages awarded on (PW1, the Valuers Reports) Exhibits 1-4 when parts of his evidence had been adjudged to be hearsay and therefore inadmissible and worthless.
