Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Asaboro & Anor V. Pan Ocean Oil Corp. (2017) CLR 1(b) (SC)

Judgement delivered on January 13th 2017

Brief

  • Trespass
  • Fresh Point on Appeal
  • Statute barred action
  • Presentation of case – Duty on party to be consistent
  • Reply Brief

Facts

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal Holden at Benin City in appeal No. CA/B/212/99 delivered on the 27th day of June, 2005 dismissing the appeal of the appellants against the decision of the Delta State High Holden Court at OGHARA delivered on the 20th day of August, 1998.

The facts of the case include the following: Appellants herein were plaintiffs at the High Court of Delta State who instituted suit No HCH/44/94 against the respondents as defendants in which they claimed the following reliefs as contained in their Further Amended Statement of Claim to be found at pages 114- 119 of the record to wit:

  • a
    "a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a statutory right of occupancy or in the alternative a A declaration that as leaseholders in respect of the Asaboro Rubber Estate in Oghara, Plaintiffs are persons entitled to be paid fair and adequate compensation for Defendants entry on the land and damages caused therein.
  • b
    A declaration that the Defendants in entering the Asaboro Rubber Estate and cutting down Plaintiffs rubber trees, destroying rubber Estate and other improvements on the plaintiffs land without paying and or tendering fair and adequate compensation to the plaintiffs, are in breach of their obligations under their oil mining lease and regulation applicable thereto their entry upon their activities on the said Estate oppressive and wrongful.
  • c
    The sum of N300,000,000.00 (Three Hundred Million Naira) being fair and reasonable compensation due and payable to plaintiffs by the Defendants for their entry and their activities on the Plaintiffs Rubber Estate involving extensive destruction of the rubber trees in the plantation and extensive damage of the land by the wasteful burrow pits dug thereon.
  • d
    The sum of N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) being punitive and or aggravated damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the defendants refusal to comply with the mandatory requirement of the Petroleum Drilling and Production Regulations from 1971 to date restricting defendants from entering or occupying or exercising any rights or powers over plaintiffs private land until it paid or tendered to the person lawfully in occupation fair and adequate compensation.
  • e
    Injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and/or privies from further entering onto the said land, remaining thereon or doing anything thereon or carrying on any oil exploration activities thereon or doing anything thereon until it complies with the said Petroleum Regulations regulating their Oil Mining Lease or License.

It is the case of appellants that the land in dispute originally belonged to Joseph Asaboro who leased it to the 2nd appellant. The said 2nd appellant planted rubber trees thereon, that sometime in 1971 the 1st respondent without the consent and authority of the appellants and in total disregard of the terms upon which an oil company may enter private land under an Oil mining Lease or Licence, unlawfully entered the appellants' rubber estate, felling, bulldozing and clearing the rubber trees thereon; that the respondents struck oil in the estate and consequently dug six huge pits measuring 30 feet in diameter and constructed extensive network of roads on the land without the consent of the appellants.

On the other hand, the respondents contend that they entered the land in dispute in 1971 following a grant of an Oil Mining Licence (OPL) No. 7 by the Federal Government and carried out seismic operation resulting in their finding oil in several parts and dug oil wells in 1972; that they constructed roads etc on the land and paid adequate compensation to the owners/rightful claimants of the surface rights (crops, economic trees, structures etc) destroyed and/or affected by the operations after enumeration and assessment exercise: that appellants' cause of action accrued in 1971 but their action was commenced in 1994; that the suit so commenced is statute barred.

At the conclusion of trial, the High Court dismissed the action for being statute barred resulting in an appeal to the Court of Appeal which, as I earlier stated, was dismissed, giving rise to the instant further appeal by the appellants.

Issues

Whether this action is time barred by the operation of the Limitation Law of Delta State....

Read More