Court dismisses N54bn oil spill suit against Mobil, rules claim filed too late
A FEDERAL High Court sitting in Uyo has struck out a N54 billion lawsuit instituted against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited, now operating as SEPNU, over an alleged oil spill that occurred in 2014.
The court ruled that the suit was statute-barred, having been filed well beyond the timeframe allowed by law. The action was initiated by representatives of the Barracks, Nditia, and Okposo 2 communities, who sought compensation for environmental damage they claimed resulted from the incident.
In their argument, the plaintiffs urged the court to classify the damage as a ‘continuing injury’ in a bid to bypass the limitation period.
However, the court rejected this position, holding that the alleged spill was a one-off event that took place in 2014 and could not be litigated more than a decade after it occurred.
READ ALSO: CBN dismisses bank takeover report as Emefiele dares Obazee
Central to the dispute was whether the case constituted a ‘continuing injury’ or merely the lingering effects of a past action.
Counsel to the defendant, Abasiemediong Etuk, maintained that a continuing injury must involve repeated or ongoing wrongful acts, rather than the sustained impact of a single occurrence.
She argued that the spill, as alleged, happened once, and any residual environmental damage did not extend the legal window for filing the suit.
“While the effects of the spill might persist, the cause of action remains fixed to the date the spill occurred,” she said.
Delivering its judgment, the court aligned with the defence, describing the plaintiffs’ claim of a continuing injury as misconceived. It held that the spill, if it occurred as alleged, was a completed act with continuing consequences, not an ongoing violation.
The court concluded that the limitation period began in 2014, rendering the suit filed in 2026 invalid.
Tags
About the Author
Yakubu Ibrahim
Analyst
Abuja, Nigeria
Yakubu Ibrahim is an analyst who writes stories bordering on corruption, politics, and business. He has won four journalism awards and worked in two media organisations.
1 Comment
Sometimes, I wonder how certain areas of the law are interpreted. Oil Pipeline Act which governed the said spill of 2014 is an Act of the National Assembly (a superior law) while limitation Law is a State law enacted by the State House of Assembly and there is no where in the Oil Pipeline Act where it is provided for limitation of suit on oil spill as it gives unfettered access to the claimant to seek for compensation in a court of law as provided by the Constitution. If State law can arrest a Federal law through limitation then state can as well arrest electoral Act by amending their limitation laws to arrest the Electoral Act provision and so forth. Where a man built on a part of someone house and refused to remove the house, the same court says the act of trespass is continuing because the house remains on the land but when it comes to oil spill on part of someone’s land, the act is abated by limitation even when the oil remains on the land uncleaned and remediate. The doctrine of continuing injury is only attainable when the said spill should have been cleaned and remediate but as far as it is still present like in Ogoni case where the UNEP said it could last forc25 to 50 years, limitation cannot arrest same hence NNPC Act then specifically provides forone year limitation from date of spill. Continuing injury is when the object of pollution remains on the land and not the abatement of the process. I laugh in French!