CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

MOBIL PRODUCING NIGERIA UNLIMITED

---

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondents before the Federal High Court Lagos brought an action against the Appellant wherein by their Second Further Amended Statement of Claim they sought for the sum of N264, 603,389.78k as special damages. The Appellant challenged the competence of the Suit on the ground that Jabin Okoro the Attorney of the Respondents lacked locus standi to sue on behalf of the Respondents hence the Suit was incompetent and also that the Respondents did not share common grievance and interest to sustain the communal action. At the end of the trial, the lower Court entered judgment in favor of the Respondents granting their reliefs for special damages. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Appellant via its Notice of Appeal challenged it on eleven grounds.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Learned trial Judge was not right to have held that the Respondents’ action was competent and is so, whether the decision on the competence of the action robbed the Appellant its right to fair hearing? Whether the learned trial Judge was not right to have rejected the evidence of the Appellant’s expert witnesses who gave evidence on the impact of the Appellant’s oil spill of 12th January, 1998 on the Respondents Community when they have never visited the said Community in their study? Whether the learned trial Judge was not right to believe the Respondents’ witnesses and held that the Respondents’ Community was negatively impacted by the Appellant’s oil spill of 12th January 1998 which spill caused losses to the Community? Whether the learned trial Judge was not right to award the sum of N264,603,389.78k in favour of the Respondents and against the Appellant having recourse to the evidence and Exhibits placed before the Court below?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

POWER OF ATTORNEY – MODE IN WHICH THE DONEE OF A POWER OF ATTORNEY MUST SUE

---

“Instead, the law is trite that the donee of a power of attorney must sue in the name of the donor or his principal. See Vulcan Gases vs. Geselis Chaft For In Casverwertung A.G. (2001) 9 NWLR (pt. 719) p. 610, Ibrahim & Ors vs. Obaje (2017) 12 SC (pt. 111) 132. –

---

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL – EFFECT OF FAILURE TO FILE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD

---

“The attorney in this action now on appeal is Jabin Okoro doing business under the name and style of Jabin Okoro (Nig) Enterprises. The attorney initiated this action on behalf of HRH Pere Smart Ekpama and Capt. Anthony T. Zuogha(For themselves and on behalf of Aghoro II, Angolo-Iba Community). It is important to note that an order amending the names of the parties was earlier granted by the lower Court.
An interlocutory appeal ought to have been filed within 14 days of the order amending the names of the parties challenge the order. See Section 24(2a) of Court of Appeal Act, 2004. I am unable to after combing through the record of appeal, to see any such appeal. The said order can therefore no longer be challenged in this appeal”. –

---

REPRESENTATIVE ACTION – WHO CAN FILE AN ACTION IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY?

---

“My Lords, the Appellant cannot challenge Respondents since it is not a member of Aghoro II Angolo-Iba Community. Only a member of that Community can challenge the representative capacity of the Respondents. See Elf Petroleum vs. Umah & Anor (2018 10 NWLR (pt. 1628) p. 428”. –

---

ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT – DUTY OF COURT TO CONSIDER AND PRONOUNCE UPON EVERY ISSUE RAISED BEFORE IT BY THE PARTIES AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

---

“In deed the law is settled on the need for a Court to consider and pronounce upon every issue raised before it by the parties. See Ifeanychukwu (Osondu) Co Ltd vs. Soleh Boneh Nig Ltd (2000) 5 NWLR (pt. 656) 322; Owodunni vs. Registered Trustees Of Celestial Church Of Christ & 3 Ors (2000) 10 NWLR (pt. 675) 315 at 326.
However, there are exceptions to the above rule. According to ONNOGHEN, JSC in Owuru & Anor vs. Adigwu & Anor (2018) 1 NWLR (pt. 1599) p. 1:
“Where a Judge or Court fails to consider an issue adjudged not to be relevant or crucial to the determination of the case or appeal before the Court, the non-reference to it is not a denial of fair hearing and will not amount to miscarriage of justice. See Federal Ministry Of Health & Anor vs. Comet Shipping Agencies Ltd (2003) 9 NWLR (pt. 1145) 193 at 220.”
–

---

EXPERT WITNESS – NATURE OF EVIDENCE BY AN EXPERT WITNESS

---

“It is trite law that an expert witness can only give evidence of what is within his personal knowledge – See Uwa Printers (Nig) Ltd Vs. Investment Trust Co. Ltd (1988) 5 NWLR (pt.93) pg. 110 where Wali, JSC stated thus:
“An expert may give his opinion or proved by himself or other witness in his hearing at trial or are matters of common knowledge. But where the opinion is based on report of facts, these facts unless they are within his personal knowledge must be proved independently, that by calling witnesses who are personally concerned in the transaction. See Ramsdale vs. Ramsdale 173 L. T. 393 and paragraph 1279, Phibson an Evidence 12th Edition.”
–

---

PLEADINGS – STATUS OF AVERMENTS IN THE PLEADINGS OF THE DEFENDANT

---

“These averments in the pleadings of the Defendant are admissions. Oral evidence cannot displace admitted facts in the pleadings. See Oiniani Brick & Dtone (Nig) Ltd vs. ACB. (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 229) 260; Ohiaeri vs. Akabeze (1992) 2 NWLR (pt. 221) page 1”. –

---

UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE – STATUS OF UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE

---

“This evaluation report was not challenged by Appellant as there was no other evaluation report tendered by the Appellant to contradict Exhibit Q. See S.P.D.C vs. Edamkwe (2002) 11 NWLR (pt. 832) 53, where the Apex Court held thus:
“Let me for the avoidance of doubt, say that in respect of issue (iv) of the Appellant, I note that the appellant, in paragraph 16(1) of its Further Amended Statement of Defence at page 191 of the Records, pleaded inter alia, that the Estate Surveyors and Valuers of the PW2, did not carry out any proper appraisal of the losses caused by the said oil spillage. Then, at paragraph 16(4) and the said page 192 thereof, it pleaded that it will rely on the appraisal Reports produced by its Valuers in respect of the said oil spillage. I note that at the trial, it never called its own Valuers. So, at the close of the trial, there was no evidence from the close of the trial, there was no evidence from the Appellant, to controvert the said evidence of the PW2 who and in fact, produced Exhibits “A” and “A1”. The Law is well settled that a trial Court, is entitled to rely and act on the uncontroverted or uncontradicated evidence of a plaintiff or his/its witness/witnesses. In such a situation, there is nothing to put or weigh on the imaginary or proverbial scale. In such a case, the onus of proof, is naturally discharged, on a minimum of proof. See the cases of Nwabuoku v. Ottih (1961) 2 SCNLR 232 (1961) 1 ANLR 487 at 490; Oguma Associated Companies (Nig) Ltd v. IBWA Ltd. (1998) 1 NWLR (pt. 73) 658 at 682; (1988) 3 SCNJ 13 and Balogun v. U.B.A Ltd (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 247) 336 at 354 (1992) 7 SCNJ, 61 just to mention a few. It is beyond doubt therefore, that the trial Court, was justified, when it relied on the said evidence of the PW2.”Per Ikechi Francis Ogbuagu, JSC.
–

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Court of Appeal Act, 2004|Evidence Act, 2011|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT