Court Dismisses ₦20.9bn Claim Against Mobil Producing

In a decision with significant implications for oil spill litigation in Nigeria, the Federal High Court sitting in Uyo has dismissed a ₦20.9 billion claim brought against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (now Seplat Energy Producing Nigeria Ultd).

The claim was instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of AIBOM Oil Producing Community Development Network (“AIBOM”), alongside Evang. Emmanuel Edet Bassey and Apostle (Dr.) Ufot Phenson, as co-plaintiffs.

The judgment, delivered by Hon. Justice Onyetenu, reaffirms the foundational principle that a plaintiff lacks the requisite locus standi where no civil rights or proprietary interests are alleged in the pleadings to have been infringed, depriving the court of the jurisdiction to proceed and rendering the suit liable to be struck out.

The Plaintiffs were represented by D.A. Awosika SAN & Partners, and the 1st Defendant (SEPNU) was represented by KENNA LP.

The Court was persuaded by the submissions of Chinonso Ekuma of KENNA LP, SEPNU’s counsel, who successfully argued that the plaintiffs failed to disclose any cognisable interest or infringed right capable of grounding their locus standi, noting that the plaintiffs’ statement of claim was devoid of averments showing that the plaintiffs’ personal interests, rights, or property were affected by the alleged acts of the defendant.

In its findings, the Court also held that the irrevocable power of attorney relied upon by the Plaintiffs as the basis upon which the action was instituted was invalid as the 1st Plaintiff did not exist at the time the document was executed. Consequently, the Court held that the power of attorney could not sustain the suit.

The Court also rejected the Plaintiffs’ contention that the 1st Defendant ought to have brought its application under Order 29 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019 which provides that a preliminary objection may be heard either before trial or at the conclusion of trial, subject to the provisions of Order 29 Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules.

In affirming the arguments canvassed by the 1st Defendant, the Court held that Order 29 was inapplicable, as the application was properly brought under Order 26 of the Rules.

The Court further clarified that Order 29 applies only to actions that do not require oral evidence. Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ argument on the issue was dismissed.

This Ruling has important practical implications for oil spill litigation and community-driven legal actions in Nigeria’s energy sector.

The decision underscores that courts will closely scrutinise a plaintiff’s pleadings to determine whether a genuine personal interest has been asserted. Claims without a specific and personal stake disclosed on the face of the pleadings will not satisfy the threshold of locus standi.’