n Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library
Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Shell-BP V. Cole (1978) CLR 3(a) (SC)

Judgement delivered on March 3rd 1978

Brief

  • Damage to land (Compensation for)
  • Concurrent finding of fact
  • Evaluation of evidence
  • Retrial order

Facts

The Respondents are members of Sagbama people who are the owners of the land over which the Sagbama creek flows and are also the owners and occupiers of the land on the banks of the creek. In 1971, without the authority and consent of the Sagbama people, the Appellants dredged the creek in order to facilitate their oil prospecting operations. In consequence of the damage and loss caused by the dredging operations, the Respondents for themselves and on behalf of the Sagbama people commenced proceedings in the High Court, Warn, and they as plaintiffs claimed against the Appellants as defendants:

  • “the sum of £60,000 (sixty thousand pounds) being a fair, reasonable and ade¬quate compensation payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs for the damage done to plaintiff's property that is to exercise customary rights from time im¬memorial whereby the defendants during their dredging operation of the said creek caused damage to plaintiffs gravel, sand, juju shrine, erosion to plaintiffs’ land and occasioned permanent loss of fishing rights on or about May, 1971, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.”

After a review of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial Judge found that in the dry season the creek used to dry up leaving pockets of water which formed a lake and ponds in places along the course of the creek wherein Sagbama people used to catch fish and they also used to win gravel and sand for commercial purposes in the creek; that as the result of the dredging no lake on ponds in which the people may catch fish is or are being formed and that on gra-vel or sand is being won by the Sagbama people. He also found that in the course of the dredging exercise fishing equipment and canoes belonging to the Sagba¬ma people were destroyed and their juju shrines were damaged and desecrated. He found the Appellants liable in damages for the loss occasioned to the Sagba¬ma people.

In his consideration of the evidence relating to the issue of damages, the learned trial Judge found that the evidence led by the Respondents provided him with no basis upon which to quantify the loss.

The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  • 1
    In what circumstances (If any) can an appellate court interfere with the...
Read More