The Federal High Court sitting in Uyo has dismissed a ₦20.9 billion claim filed against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited, now Seplat Energy Producing Nigeria Unlimited, over alleged oil spill-related claims.
The suit was instituted by the Incorporated Trustees of AIBOM Oil Producing Community Development Network, alongside Evang. Emmanuel Edet Bassey and Apostle Dr. Ufot Phenson, as co-plaintiffs.
Delivering judgment, Justice Onyetenu held that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary locus standi to maintain the action against the defendant.
The court reaffirmed the principle that a plaintiff who does not plead or disclose a civil right, proprietary interest or personal legal interest allegedly infringed lacks the standing to sue, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The plaintiffs were represented by D. A. Awosika, SAN & Partners, while the first defendant, Seplat Energy Producing Nigeria Unlimited, was represented by KENNA LP.
The court was persuaded by the submissions of Chinonso Ekuma of KENNA LP, counsel to the first defendant, who argued that the plaintiffs did not disclose any recognisable legal interest or infringed right capable of grounding their standing before the court.
Ekuma submitted that the plaintiffs’ statement of claim contained no averment showing that their 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 on by the plaintiffs as the basis for instituting the action was invalid.
The court found that the first plaintiff did not exist at the time the power of attorney was executed and consequently held that the document could not sustain the suit.
The court further rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the first defendant ought to have brought its application under Order 29 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2019, which deals with preliminary objections.
Justice Onyetenu agreed with the first defendant that Order 29 was inapplicable and held that the application was properly brought under Order 26 of the Rules.
The court clarified that Order 29 applies only to actions that do not require oral evidence, and consequently dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument on that point.
The ruling is considered significant for oil spill litigation and community-driven claims in Nigeria’s energy sector.
It underscores the requirement that plaintiffs must clearly plead a specific and personal legal interest before approaching the court, especially in claims involving alleged environmental harm, community rights or oil spill-related damages.
The decision also reinforces the position that courts will closely scrutinise pleadings to determine whether a genuine right or proprietary interest has been disclosed.
Where no specific personal stake is shown on the face of the pleadings, such claims may fail for want of locus standi.
