This is an appeal against the judgement of Akpiroroh J delivered on March 20, 1991 at Oleh High Court now in Delta State. The plaintiffs (now appellant) instituted the action in representative capacities for themselves and on behalf of the people of Olomoro Isoko in the then Bendel State, now in Delta State. The defendant in the action (now respondent) is a limited liability company incorporated in Nigeria. It is in fact an arm of a multinational commercial giant carrying on the business of crude oil and natural gas exploration and production with installations in many parts of Nigeria including Olomoro and other areas of Isoko land of Delta State.

The plaintiffs are natives and inhabitants of Olomoro Isoko in Delta State, an area in which the defendant carried on some of it's oil and gas exploration activities. The defendant, according to the pleadings filed in the case had been carrying on its said oil and gas exploration activities in the area since about 1962. The gravamen of plaintiffs' case against the defendant was that as a result of the defendant's activities on their land, their said land had been seriously and adversely impoverished. They claimed that they were predominantly a farming community and that they depended on farming the said land for their lining. They alleged that the activities of the defendant company had greatly diminished the output they used to realise from their farming activities on the land. Their action against the company was to obtain a redress for the losses they suffered from the devaluation effects the company's activities had on their land in question.

APleadings were ordered, filed and exchanged. Evidence was led by each side in support of the pleadings. The plaintiffs produced and tendered a survey plan of the land they claimed as theirs.

The trial court rejected the evidence of appellant's experts on the ground that the evidence of PW4 on which they are based are unreliable. The court also rejected the evidence of DW4 on the grounds that the other experts who prepared the report jointly with DW4 were not called to testify as witnesses. The court thus dismissed the appellants’ case.

Appellants were dissatisfied, appealed. The respondents also cross-appealed.