Oronto Douglas v. Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd. & Ors.

The appellant is an environmental activist who filed a claim against the respondents and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. The claim is for a declaration and injunction to stop the respondents from continuing with a liquefied natural gas project until an environmental impact assessment is conducted. The respondents filed a preliminary objection, arguing that the appellant lacks the necessary standing and that the procedure of the claim is defective. The trial judge ruled in favour of the respondents, stating that the appellant has no legal standing and that the procedure was confused. The appellant filed an appeal, arguing that they have sufficient personal interest, the activities of the respondents pose environmental danger, and they have a statutory interest in the subject matter. The appellant also argued that there was no mix-up in the originating process and that the ruling was against the weight of evidence. The court found that the respondents were premature in moving to dismiss the action and that there were not enough materials for the trial judge to make a valid decision. The court emphasized the importance of filing a statement of claim and an affidavit in support of a motion to dismiss for want of legal competence. The appeal was allowed as the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge misdirected himself and set aside his decision, remitting the matter back to the Federal High Court for a retrial before another judge. The Court of Appeal held: 1. That where a defendant filed a motion on notice of preliminary objection, he also needs to accompany the motion with an affidavit. See Nwabueze v. Okoye (1988) 4 NWLR (pt.91) 664; Bello v. N.B.N. Ltd (1992) 6 NWLR (pt.246) 206; Fawehinmi v. Abacha (1996) 9 NWLR (pt.475) 710. 2. That on the issue of the filing or non-filing of supportive affidavit to demurrer proceedings this court in clear and unequivocal terms declared in Free Enterprises (Nig.) Ltd. v. G.T.O.S.A (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt.532) page I that it is mandatory under Orders 27 and 33 Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules to accompany demurrer proceedings with a supportive affidavit. 3. That a court is duty-bound to make a pronouncement on the issue of the competency of the suit raised before it at the earliest opportunity. Even if the issue of objection is technical it cannot be ignored but it must be raised with sufficient facts to enable the court to deal fairly with the case of both parties. The court cannot speculate on the facts. 4. That In ascertaining the locus standi of a person to prosecute any action, it is usually the statement of claim that should be examined to see whether there is vested a justiciable right capable of being enforced. See Olagbegi v. Ogunneye II. (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 448) 332: The issue of locus standi involves the issue of the courts jurisdiction to entertain the matter brought to it. It has been held that such issue cannot ordinarily be considered solely on the face of the writ of summons without a statement of claim filed. See Multi Purpose Ventures Ltd. v. A.-G. River State (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt.522) 642. See also Elendu v. Ekwoaba (1995) 3 NWLR (Pt.386) 704. In the case of A.G. Enugu State v. Avop Plc. (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt.399) 90 at 113 Tobi. I.CA. said: "In deciding the issue of locus standi at the trial Court, only the Statement of Claim should be looked into." 5. For a plaintiff to establish his locus standi in an action for declaratory order he must prove that his legal right or interest which he seeks to protect is not a right common to the community at large, unless he can show that he suffered damages more than any person.