Justice Isa Ndahen of the Federal High Court in Yenagoa, on Tuesday adjourned hearing into a N700 billion oil spill compensation suit filed by members of Aghoro1 community in Bayelsa State to May 4.
The people of Aghoro 1 in Ekeremor Local Government Area in Bayelsa sued Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) over a May 17, 2018 oil leak from the oil firm’s Trans Ramos Pipeline.
The defendants in the suit are, Shell Petroleum Development Company, Shell International Exploration and Production BV, Attorney-General and Minister of Justice and Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation.
The pantiffs are Mr Victor Akamu, Pastor Erebimienkumor Goddey, Mrs Jane Alex, Miss Edith George, Mr Isreal and FASF Associates Ltd on behalf of Aghoro 1 community at Ekeremor LGA, Bayelsa.
The community is seeking redress for the damages caused by the oil spill and are claiming that the N33.49 million offered by SPDC was a far cry from the N700 billion claim based on impacted area damage assessment.
At today’s hearing, Counsel to Shell Petroleum Development Company, Shell, SPDC, Mr O Onasanya, SAN, told the court that he is challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case because it was statute barred.
According to him, the originating process in the case through originating summons does not provide for oral evidence and cross examination of witnesses stating that it deprives the defendants of their rights to fair hearing.
“The size of the claims is better imagined, and gives me sleepless nights and I will do everything legally possible to defend our position including approaching the court of appeal.
“The witnesses that arrived at the damage cost must be brought into the witness box for cross examination because we have denied the allegations they made and it cannot stand,” Onasanya submitted.
Onasanya further appealed to the court to grant him relief to approach the Court of Appeal to interpret the statutes as it concerns one of the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.
But counsel to the plaintiffs, Mr Mohammed Mohammed, objected the submission of Onasanya and told the presiding Justice Ndahen, that the defendants’ efforts to challenge the court”s jurisdiction and seek relief to approach the appeal court was a delay tactic.
According to Mohammed, the supreme court ruled that cases started by originating summons requires that when there is a challenge on jurisdiction, the court should take the motions alongside the substantive case.
He added that it was a breach of procedure for a party to ask for relief from a trial court to go to the appellate court on a motion, which he says is a ploy to buy time and frustrate the plaintiffs.
After listening to both counsels, Justice Ndahen pleaded with both senior lawyers, to show leadership to younger counsels to ensure speedy dispensation of justice.
Justice Ndahen said that despite his meeting with the senior advocates, to make sure that the case is not delayed, he was surprised that he was still confronted with many applications including the one challenging the court’s jurisdiction.
“This case cannot be different from other cases and we must make progress. I have met with all the senior advocates who are ministers in the temple of justice to ensure we make progress.
“We have been going back and forth without making progress and keeping other litigants waiting.
“I will fix a date exclusively for this and take all the pending motions and applications.” He stated
Justice Ndahen, thereafter, adjourned until May 4, to hear the pending applications with priority to the one challenging jurisdiction.