“Our clients asked us to inform you that your oil spill at Bonga field that occurred on December 20, 2011 flowed to their village fishing areas and thereafter disturbed their fishing activities, stained their fishing materials, vegetations, killed aquatic lives. Some of the oil spill which your people dispersed with chemicals caused turbidity within our clients’ fishing areas and also formed tire balls which were taken to our clients’ shores by sea currents.”
“In summary, and without conducting a mini-trial of the issue: i) It is clear that many claimants will have suffered actionable damage before4 April 2012 ; ii) On current information the Defendants have a reasonably arguable case on limitation, though it is not certain that all Claimants suffered actionable damage caused by oil from the December 2011 spill before4 April 2012 ; iii) If and to the extent that the Claimants had not suffered actionable damage before4 April 2012 , it is arguable and inherently plausible that some may have suffered actionable damage between April 2012 and June 2013; iv) On present information it is not possible to exclude the possibility that some Claimants may first have suffered actionable damage after June or even October/November 2013. There is, however, at present no reason to conclude that they did; On present information it is not possible to reach any further conclusions for the purposes of these applications about who suffered damage when.”
“Crude oil from the Bonga Spill came inland and reached the Claimants’ land, waterways and property (located and as described below). For those claimants living in relative proximity to Nigeria's Atlantic shoreline, this occurred in December 2011 or shortly thereafter. For others, living further inland in the delta hinterland of Nigeria's Atlantic shoreline, this occurred months or years later, as oil from the Bonga Spill took time to migrate a significant distance and reach different areas inland.”
“For the purposes of the Date of Damage Hearing, the Court will be proceeding on the assumption that some oil from the Bonga Spill reached the Nigerian shoreline (and did so “within weeks rather than months” of the Bonga Spill). The question of whether oil reached the shoreline is therefore not an issue on which the Experts are required to present an opinion – it is taken as an assumption.”
“Slicks at the onset are always composed of thin and thick slicks like a fried egg. The thick portion, usually 10% is of various thicknesses but usually about 3 µ.”
“Q. Your model only lasts until a week or so after the spill, it doesn't do anything after that, it doesn't assess anything, it doesn't predict anything after that date? A. This model is an offshore, this model simulates the movement and the fate of the oil particles until they reach the boundaries of the simulation domain. … Q. Which is a week or so after the spill? A. Yes. … Q. So the model only takes you so far, it doesn't show you anything about movement up the coast does it? A. Of course not. Q. And it doesn't show you anything about movement inland? A. Of course not. Q. So you model to the shoreline and that's it? It doesn't model into the rivers and the estuaries? A. … The modelling of the estuaries is far more complex. So we have left open just the estuaries, the boundaries of the Forcados estuary, and we have implemented the necessary boundary conditions in order to simulate the effects. But these effects are applicable only to the area that is close to the mouth of the estuary. But further inland you need separate models. … Q. You have not produced separate models? A. No.”
“According to the simulation results, a total amount of approx. 2,042,316 kg (approx. 15,000 barrels/bbl) of heavy fuel oil have impacted the Niger Delta shoreline up until early afternoon hours of 28.12.2011, out of which approx. 1,961,530 kg (approx. 14,000 barrels/bbl) were stranded on the coast while another 80,786 kg (approx. 6,000 bbl) sedimented on the shallow waters near the coast. From the total amount of oil stranded on the shoreline (15,000 bbl), approximately 2,044 bbl has initially impacted the involved rivers estuaries. The Bonga oil pollution covers more than 100 km in the coastline of Bayelsa and Delta States, stretching out from the Dodo river estuary until the South of Benin river estuary.”
“Our analysis after assessment of the information included in the documents/ files received with our instructions is technically limited to the strong indication that an unspecified amount of oil after the Bonga spill eventually impacted the Niger Delta shoreline. Determination of the area (which area/s in Niger Delta), the extent (the total range of contamination) and the degree (how much oil and of what type impacted the shoreline) could not be assessed.”
“Q. You agree with this, I think, that if oil had landed near the mangroves, you would expect to see some effect on the mangroves, yes? A. Yes.”
“Q. You didn't have data to look at from the communities which it was alleged had been impacted several years later in order to see whether that was in fact Bonga spill. You didn't have such data did you? A. No, no, personally I didn't have. Q. In fact we were told by Captain Bekas, who gave evidence a couple of days ago, that samples were not taken from any of the communities which it is now said were impacted several years later. So it's not just that you didn't have them, nobody had them. Does that accord with what you know? A. Yeah, I think that's a good representation of reality. That is the situation.”
“I witnessed the spill myself, there was a huge slick of oil along the coastline. I knew it to be the Bonga Oil Spill because it was the only oil spill at that time… The Bonga oil spill caused water pollution and environmental pollution. As a result, there was major damage sustained to fishing and farming practices as the damage to the soil was fatal. New tools also had to be purchased because of the damage. Farming and fishing has since resumed to business as usual. There was damage to drinking wells which meant members of my Community had to purchase water from nearby urban areas. There was damage to religious shrines.”
“Abe-Bateren is located up north of Warri, very far from the shoreline bordering the Benin River. Parts of Abe-Bateren contain thick or dense mangrove which leads to the shoreline, but the bulk of the community is embedded uplands and away from the coast. I own about 50 acres of land in Abe-Bateren, which I used to use for the breeding of tuna fish. My land is about 50 kilometres from the coast.”
“Abe-Bateren is a sub-set community of Batere, you pass through Abe-Bateren to reach the main town. I am aware that previously my solicitors have had difficulty mapping with any accuracy Abe-Bateren, however I can confirm that my community is located near Batere on the Delta Map, close to the communities of Olobe and Bobi and near the Uton-Udo creek.”
“Abe-Bateren is a community - is a fishing camp… when there is high tide, you see the place almost entirely flooded. and once it is low tide, then you can get some patches of land. Otherwise, most of the structures that we find on ground around Abe-Bateren, they are thatched houses with plank floor. They put plank on the floor for people to stay. But for the land itself, the land of Abe-Bateren, it's almost like submerged in water. It's a small island, and water almost up to the level of the water …”
“Due to the viscosity of the crude oil which penetrated the fresh water and the creeks, the fish in my fish farm suffocated, and I lost the entire stock which comprised about 5,000 mature fishes, 7,000 at the intermediate stage and about 9,000 fingerlings, despite the best efforts of my cousin to salvage the situation before I arrived there the next day.”
“The Bonga oil Spill first impacted by land on20 June 2014 . I remember the date that oil first reached my farm in Abe-Bateren vividly, as I had a meeting with NOSDRA to discuss the Bonga Oil Spill and what the agency was looking to do to bring relief to the people affected. Whilst in the meeting with NOSDRA’s staff, I received a call from my cousin who told me over the telephone that the Bonga Oil Spill had also reached Abe-Bateren and that the fresh water appeared to be completely contaminated, along with my land and the ponds situated on it. The next day, I left Abuja and flew to Warri and visited Abe-Bateren to witness the destruction first-hand.”
“8. This evidence presents problems that require explanation: a. Turn first to E/104 (said to be taken on22 June 2014 ). It is possible to identify from left to right: Man 1 (white shirt, distinctive wristband on left and watch on right wrists, blue cropped jeans), Man 2 (striped blue and white shirt and blueish shorts) and Man 3 (grey/green/black shirt and black shorts with white piping). These three men are identified by Mr Jalla as his staff workers. b. Turn next to E/105 (said to be taken16 March 2020 and to show Mr Jalla’s staff workers). It is possible to identify Man 1 and Man 3 from the previous photographs by virtue of their clothes and general appearance. It is also possible to identify Man 4 (blue/white long-sleeve shirt, blue jeans, yellow boots) and Man 5 (black top and cropped trousers, watch on right wrist). Man 2 is not there. c. Taken in isolation, the suggestion must be that Man 1 and 3 were wearing the same clothes and wrist bands on22 June 2014 and16 March 2020 . 9. Turn next to E/92 ( which is said to be taken on Mr Chujor’s land on4 September 2015 and to show Mr Chujor’s workers”
“Whilst preparing my first witness statement I liaised very closely with the Secretary to whom I gave specific instruction over the telephone concerning the photographs exhibit to my first witness statement… I honestly was under the impression that the Secretary was familiar with my photographs. I held telephone discussions with the Secretary about the photographs relevant to my first witness statement. I gave the Secretary clear instructions where to insert the photographs in my first witness statements.
“On or around21 March 2020 Jalla 5 and Chujor 1 were sent to me for the purpose [of] attaching relevant and supporting [materials] and letters behind each of the exhibits to which they both referred in their witness statements… Both Mr Jalla and Mr Chujor spent considerable time with me on the phone explaining to me what [materials] I needed to place behind each exhibit. There are numerous pictures that we hold in the office taken at different times by different people from all around the affected areas in the Niger Delta. It was not really a problem finding the pictures belonging to Mr Jalla and Mr Chujor as I knew exactly where to look but it was the sheer number of their pictures that I believe may have given rise to the error that I eventually committed. In labelling the picture attachments for the fifth witness statement of Mr Harrison Jalla and the first witness statement of Mr Abel Chujor, I mistakenly used the same pictures for Mr Jalla and Mr Chujor.”
“Q. How many people live in Tonbrapade-Gbene would you say, approximately? A. I wouldn't know, because I'm only concerned with my fish farm that was there. I didn't know about the community very well.”
“I don’t live in the area. I only have a fish farm in the area. And that is what I was concerned with.”
“I am aware that my community is in Delta State, it's in Warri North Local Government Area. But I wouldn't know, I may not be able to say whether this map is a true representation of where my community is.”
“Oil from the Bonga oil spill first reached my community on10 September 2015 . I was an eyewitness to the event. I saw crude oil all over the water around my community. It was prevalent when it occurred. I remember this date clearly because an elder in my community who had been suffering from a protracted illness, passed away on the same day. This date could not be forgotten.”
“Oil from the Bonga spill first reached my community on1 September 2015 . We woke up to see oil floating on top of the river. I believed that it was Bonga oil because it was the only spill at the time.”
“It is agreed that for 40 or 50 years there has been chronic oil pollution of the Niger delta. It is agreed that the oil industry and illegal activities leading to oil spillage have caused widespread environmental damage to the region.”
“Considerable weight is usually given to the decisions of foreign courts as evidence of foreign law, though such decisions can only, it seems be referred to if in the evidence of an expert witness and, further must be interpreted in the light of the meaning attributed to the decisions by the expert rather than according to the court’s independent research involving material not referred to by the expert. But the court is not bound to apply a foreign decision if it is satisfied, as a result of all the evidence, that the decision does not accurately represent the foreign law. Where foreign decisions conflict, the court may be asked to decide between them, even though in the foreign country the question still remains to be authoritatively settled.”
“Subject to the provisions of this section and except in so far as other provision is made by any Federal Law, the Common law of England and doctrines of equity, together with the statutes of general application that were in force in England on 1st day of January 1900, shall, in so far as they relate to any matter within the legislative competence of the federal legislature, be in force in Nigeria.”
“No action founded on contract, tort or any other action not specifically provided for in Parts II and III of this Law shall be brought after the expiration of five years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”
“The Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction throughout the Federation, and for that purpose the whole area of the Federation shall be divided by the Chief Judge into such number of Judicial Divisions or part thereof by such name as he may think fit.”
“Where a local statute is available and applies to a particular local situation, courts of law have no jurisdiction to go all the way to England to search for an English statute. This is because by the local statute, the law makers intend it to apply in the locality and not any English statute which is foreign and inapplicable. Much as I appreciate the colonial tie between England and Nigeria, it will seriously hamper and compromise our sovereignty if we continue to go on a borrowing 'spree', if I may so unguardedly call it, to England for the laws of that country without any justifiable reason. Nigeria is Nigeria and England is England. Statutes of England cannot apply to Nigeria as a matter of course, even the so-called statutes of general application.”
“…with regard to the reliance by the lower court on the Limitation Edict CAP 89 of the Laws of Kaduna State 1991… This law was made to provide for limitation of actions in Kaduna State. It therefore applied to any action filed in any court of law in Kaduna State including of course the Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna where the Appellants chose to file their action against the Respondents. The law applies to any action filed in any court operating within territorial area of Kaduna State without any regard as to who the parties in the action are. …In this respect, the lower court was quite right applying the law to the present case before it in deciding on the Appellants’ claims.”
“Unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation, the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort/delict shall be the law of the country in which the damage occurs irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and irrespective of the country or countries in which the indirect consequences of that event occur.”
“Where a State comprises several territorial units, each of which has its own rules of law in respect of non-contractual obligations, each territorial unit shall be considered as a country for the purposes of identifying the law applicable under this Regulation.”
“(1) A custom may be adopted as part of the law governing a particular set of circumstances if it can be judicially noticed or can be proved to exist by evidence. (2) The burden of proving a custom shall lie upon the person alleging its existence.”
“A custom may be judicially noticed when it has been adjudicated upon once by a superior court of record.”
“(1) Where a custom cannot be established as one judicially noticed, it shall be proved as a fact. (2) Where the existence or the nature of a custom applicable to a given case is in issue, there may be given in evidence the opinions of persons who would be likely to know of its existence in accordance with section 73. (3) In any judicial proceeding where any custom is relied upon, it shall not be enforced as law if it is contrary to public policy, or is not in accordance with natural justice, equity and good conscience.”
“Every fact is deemed to be relevant which tends to show how in particular instances a matter alleged to be a custom was understood and acted upon by persons then interested.”
“When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of … customary law or custom … the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such … customary law or custom … are admissible.”
“In deciding questions of customary law and custom, the opinions of traditional rulers, chiefs or other persons having special knowledge of the customary law and custom and any book or manuscript recognised as legal authority by people indigenous to the locality in which such law or custom applies, are admissible.”
“(1) When the court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any general custom or right the opinions, as to the existence of such custom or right, of persons who would be likely to know of its existence if it existed are admissible. (2) The expression “general custom or right” includes customs or rights common to any considerable class of persons.”