Whether The Law on Limitation of Action Applies to Cases of Continuous Damage/Injury

CASE TITLE: EDIDIONG EYEN DEEP SEA FISHING CO-OPERTIVE INVESMENT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD v. MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG) UNLTD (2024) LPELR-62964(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: LIMITATION LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on civil procedure.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the ruling of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, sitting at Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, delivered by Hon. Justice J. E. Inyang on the 24th March, 2023.

The appellants are a registered cooperative society made up of 150 persons whose business is commercial fishing and fish farming at the New Barrack fishing settlement, Mkpanak Creek in Ibeno Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State.

By their suit at the trial Court, they claimed that the respondent by its negligence, caused a crude oil spill from its facility at Qua Iboe Oil Field Terminal in the Ibeno Local Government Area of Akwa Ibom State on the 29th of June, 2014, which negatively impacted the fishing activities of the appellants’ members because the spill polluted the entire river and the adjoining creeks and swamps, thereby totally paralyzing their fishing operation, being their only means of livelihood.

The appellant further claimed that the crude oil spill, which occurred on the 29th of June, 2014, is still evident on the surface of the water because the respondent did not take steps to prevent the crude oil that had already spilled from spreading in the water, which has left the spill unabated till the date of filing of the suit. Consequently, the crude oil left floating around continued to spread and cause damage to the waters and aquatic life in the sea, thereby endangering the appellants’ means of livelihood. The appellant alleged that the failure of the respondent to remedy their fishing and economic environment occasioned a continuity of damages and/or injury to the appellants’ economic activities, thereby affecting their economic wellbeing till date.

The respondent denied the claims of the appellant vide its statement of defence and in addition, the respondent filed a motion on notice by which it raised a preliminary objection to the competence of the suit of the appellants and prayed that same be dismissed or struck out for want of jurisdiction.

The learned trial Judge delivered the Court’s ruling and held that the appellants’ suit is statute barred; as such, the trial Court lacks the jurisdiction to determine it. He therefore dismissed the suit in limine.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the appellants appealed against the same.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issues formulated by the appellants in the determination of the appeal, thus:

1. Whether the trial Court was right to uphold the preliminary objection of the Respondent on the basis that continuity of damages and/or injury coupled with equitable reliefs copiously pleaded and claimed are not an exception to statute bar in tortious liability of negligence?

2. Whether the trial Court was right to award cost of N50,000.00 (Fifty thousand Naira) only against the Appellant in view of the submissions in issue one above?

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

• LIMITATION LAW- LIMITATION OF ACTION: Whether the law on limitation of action applies to cases of continuous damage/injury
• LIMITATION LAW- STATUTE OF LIMITATION: Circumstances in which statute of limitation is not applicable

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol