CORAM

O. ACHIKE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

U. MOHAMMED

U.A. KALGO

MICHAEL EKUNDAYO OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT(Read the Leading Judgment)

PARTIES

MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA LTD APPELLANTS

LAGOS STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYFEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYMINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT (Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR)VARIOUS RESPONDENTS(set out in the schedule to the Notice of appeal) RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The issue of lack of pre- action notice on the on the 2nd respondent was raised during oral arguments on application to discharge an interim order made in the matter by other respondents. The suit was instituted by originating summons by the appellant.

HELD

The court held that failure to serve pre-action notice can be waived and that the objection not having been raised in the pleading (Affidavit), it could not be upheld.

ISSUES

1. Whether the various 4th Respondents had the locus to raise and/or properly raised the issue of the appellant’s alleged non-compliance with the pre-action notice requirement under S.29(2) of the FEPA Act 1988 to support their application to strike out the originating summons and vacate the subsisting order of interim injunction. 2. Whether the lower court was right in affirming the trial court’s decision striking out the originating summons and vacating the order of interim injunction on the ground that the appellant failed to show in the affidavit in support of the originating summons (or otherwise) that it had complied with the provisions of the FEPA Act 1988 by giving the requisite one-month pre-action notice to the 2nd respondent. 3. Whether the originating summons did not disclose a reasonable cause of action even if the action against the 2nd respondent was incompetent on account of the appellant’s failure to show that it had served the 2nd respondent with the requisite one-month pre-action notice (which is denied) having regard to the issues for determination in the originating summons with regard to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

Yassin v. Barclays Bank D.CO (1968) NMLR 380|Ngelegla v. Nongowa Tribunal Authority 14 W.A.C.A at 327;|Akwei v. Akivel (1943) 9 WACA 325 at p.327|Dismore v. Milton (1938) 3 ALL ER. 763-763:159 L.T at 382|Peacock v. Bell and Kendall (1867) 1 Wms. Saund. 101

STATUTES REFERRED TO

NONE.|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT