Dipo Kehinde|


MPN operations Worker in Action
Christmas came early for some fishermen in Lagos today as the Federal High Court in the state awarded N10billion compensatory damages against oil giant, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (MPN).
After 14 years in various courts, Justice I. N. Buba delivered judgement today asking MPN to pay N10billion in answer to the prayers of the Fishing Communities and Cooperatives of Lagos, led by Chief M.A. Ajanaku in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/274/2002.
He granted all claims by the Plaintiffs, except the Claim of Interest.
The Plaintiffs were represented by the law firm of Babalakin and Co., while the law firm of Adepetun Caxton Martins Agbor and Segun represented the Defendant.
According to Court documents obtained by Newsmakers, the suit was instituted at the Federal High Court in Lagos on March 15, 2002 “pursuant to the Idoho-QIT Mobil pipeline rupture which resulted in the release of about 40,000 barrels (approximately 6,000 tonnes) (7,637,280 litres) of Nigeria Qua Iboe light crude oil “the spill” into the marine environment on Monday, January 12, 1998.

AS A RESULT OF THE SAID OIL SPILL, THE PLAINTIFFS INSTITUTED THIS ACTION TO RECOVER DAMAGES DONE TO THEM FOR THE DEFENDANT’S IDOHO OIL SPILL AND THE RESULTANT DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFFS’ TOOLS OF TRADE AND OCCUPATIONAL LOCATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT

“The rupture was as a result of the rust and corrosion of the 24 inches pipeline which, at the time of the spill was about 25 years old. The site of the rupture/burst is in Akwa Ibom State but the spill did spread to other parts of the country including Lagos (the Plaintiffs’ communities) for about 850 km of Nigeria’s coastline and up to Republic of Benin.
“As a result of the said oil spill, the Plaintiffs instituted this action to recover damages done to them for the Defendant’s Idoho oil spill and the resultant damage to the Plaintiffs’ tools of trade and occupational locations and environment. The Plaintiffs’ commenced this action by way of writ of summons and statement of claim dated 27th February 2002 but filed 15th March, 2002. The Defendant filed a statement of defence dated 9th October, 2002 albeit out of time. Consequently, the Plaintiffs filed their reply to the statement of defence dated 6th March, 2003.
“However, the Defendant by its Notice of Preliminary Objection challenged the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court to hear and determine the suit on the basis that the action was statute barred. In a ruling delivered on 10th April 2003, The Honourable Justice Abimbola O. Ogie, dismissed the said Notice of preliminary objection. Consequent upon the dismissal, the Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division challenging the ruling and seeking stay of proceedings of the matter via a notice of appeal dated 16th April 2003 and a motion for stay of proceedings dated 20th November, 2003.
“On the 16th of February 2007, the Court of appeal dismissed the Defendant’s application for stay of proceedings. The decision of the Court of Appeal is reported as CA/L/4599M/2003: Mobil Producing (Nig) Unltd vs. Chief M. A. Ajanaku & Ors (2007) LPELR -8758 (CA). The said decision sufficiently disposed off the issue of the action being statute barred canvassed in the Defendant’s statement of defence.
“The Plaintiff subsequently amended its statement of claim dated 14th November 2008 and claimed against the Defendant as follows:


(1) A declaration that the Defendant’s continuing failure, neglect and refusal to undertake post impact remediation measures to restore the ecosystem of the lands and Waters of Life inhabited by the Plaintiffs and where they carry on their occupation of fishing and fish farming, is unlawful, unconstitutional and a violation of the Plaintiffs’ right to life, and right to live in an environment favourable to their socio-economic development as guaranteed under Section 33 of the Nigerian Constitution, 1999, Articles 22 and 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act Cap 10, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.
(2) A declaration that the Plaintiffs whose representatives signed the release forms in favour of the Defendant signed same by the undue influence of the Defendant and that the document is therefore null and void.
(3) A declaration that the document purporting to release the Defendant from paying due compensation to the Plaintiffs who signed the documents and or from effecting post-impact remediation programmes to restore the Plaintiffs’ environment is null and void on grounds that the document relates to an unconscionable bargain which was signed under economic duress and in breach of statutory provisions.
(4) An order for the delivery and cancellation of all release documents signed by representatives of some of the Plaintiffs on the ground that the signatures of some of the representatives of the Plaintiffs thereon was obtained by economic duress, undue influence and fraud.
(5) An order that the Defendant should commence post impact remediation programmes in respect of the Plaintiffs’ lands and waters polluted by the Defendant’s Idoho oil spill and do all such acts and things to clean up the environment of the Plaintiffs and to restore same to its original state.
(6) Special damages of the sum of N8, 400, 000, 000 (eight billion, four hundred million Naira) only, particulars of which are shown in the schedule attached thereto.
(7) Interest on the aforesaid special damages at the rate of 10% per annum from 26th January 1998 until judgment and interest on the same rate until full payment thereof by the Defendant.
( The Plaintiffs claim the sum of N1,400,000,000 (one billion four hundred million Naira) only being general damages for the infraction of their constitutional and statutory rights and interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 10% from the date of judgment until full payment.

http://newsmakersng.com/2016/12/14/fishermen-win-n10billion-as-mobil-loses-lagos-oil-spillage-case/

Gbese re oo!!

I heard 10billion was like