Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:29:31.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oil Spill Compensation Claims in Nigeria: Principles, Guidelines and Criteria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Ombolaji Adewale
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent times, compensation arising from oil spills has assumed a significant role in the Nigerian oil industry. The significance stems from the fact that, with petroleum operations spillage is inevitable. Oil spills have various effects on the health of the populace as well as the economic and scenic value of the environment. Thus there is the need to minimise the effect of the occurrence of oil spill. One way of achieving this objective is through compensation. The essence of compensation is to make amends for the loss suffered by the victims. In making these amends, the loss experienced by the victim must be recompensed otherwise the compensation cannot be said to be adequate or equivalent to the compulsory sacrifice.

Victims of oil spill have claimed that the compensation paid to them is unreasonable and cannot be said to be recompense for their loss. Oil companies on the other hand claim that the compensation paid to the victims is adequate and that they operate within the parameter approved by the Inspectorate Division of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation or the State Ministry of Lands. Apart from this, many claims made by the communities are not honoured by the oil companies on the grounds that they are spurious and speculative. Even when the claims are genuine the oil companies may not pay if the spillage occurred as a result of acts of sabotage.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , Spring 1989 , pp. 91 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Causes of oil spill include engineering error, natural causes, accidents, equipment failure, and lack of maintenance.

2 Uchegbu, A., “Legal framework for oil spill clean-up Liability and Compensation in Nigeria” in Proceeding of the 1983 International Seminar of the Petroleum Industry and the Nigerian Environment, Lagos, P. 33Google Scholar

3 Lord Scott in Horn v. Sunderland [1941] 2 K.B. 26.Google Scholar

4 Land Use Act 1978, section 29(2).Google Scholar

5 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1978.Google Scholar

6 Cap. 195 Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria & Lagos, 1958.Google ScholarPubMed

7 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, section 40 (M).

8 No. 6 of 1978.

9 No. 51 of 1969 Schedule 3.

10 Cap. 121, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria & Lagos, 1958.Google Scholar

11 Section 77.

12 (1976) 9 & 10 S.C. 101.

13 Section 2 of the Minerals Act.

14 Petroleum Act 1969, section 14.Google Scholar

15 No. 31 (1956) Cap. 145 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos, 1958.Google Scholar

16 Section 11(5).

17 This regulation is made under the Petroleum Act, 1969.Google Scholar

18 Paragraph 20.

19 1886 L.R. 265.

20 These figures were obtained from Shell Petroleum Development Company.

21 Aduloju, A. O.; “National Oil Spill Contingency Plan: The Petroleum Industry and the Nigerian Environment” Proceedings of the 1985 Seminar, Lagos, p. 178.Google Scholar

22 Suit No. UHC/43/73 of 21/11/74.

23 See also Perry v. Kendricks Transport Ltd [1956] 1 W.L.R.Google Scholar

24 No. 30 of 1975.

25 Section 3(1) and (2).

26 Section 6.

27 Section 3(7)(ii).

28 The Allocation of Revenue (Federal Account etc) Act 1981 section 2(2).Google Scholar

29 This treaty is based on the Offshore Liability Convention, 1977.Google Scholar

30 This doctrine was applied in Victor Elem and Anor v. Shell B.P., Suit No. PHC 101/76 Port Harcourt High Court 12 1979.Google Scholar

31 This is due to the fact that the villagers still regard the land as their property although the operators no longer pay to them the yearly rent for the lease of the land, as was previously done before the Land Use Act 1978. In the case of outright purchase, large sums of money was paid to the landowners. With the Land Use Act this changed. The operator could no longer buy land directly from the villagers, and as compensation was no longer payable for the land itself but for the things thereon, the villagers might not get anything if the land did not have any improvement on it: section 29. It is possible for the government to acquire a vast area of land for petroleum purpose, i.e. granting the operator a lease over a large area, yet the villagers will know nothing about the acquisition.

32 1976 4 S.C. 85

33 Farmgate price is the cost of the crop on the farm.

34 1974 2 R.S.L.R. 93.

35 Supra.

36 Ekekwe, E., “The Funiwa-5 oil well blow out,” The Petroleum Industry and the Nigerian Environment—Proceedings of the 1983 Seminar p. 64.Google Scholar

37 The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979.Google Scholar

38 Section 4 item 37 Part 1 of the Constitution.

39 Joel Odum & Ors v. Shell B.P. & Weco Nigeria Ltd., supra.

40 Section 40(3) of the Nigerian Constitution.

41 Section 274(5) of the Nigerian Constitution.

42 Land Use Act 1978 section 1.Google Scholar

43 Sec below.

44 Section 18.

45 Section 18.

46 J. Chinda & Ors v. Shell B.P., (1974) 2 R.S.L.R. 1.Google Scholar

47 Umukoro Adhemove v. Shell B.P. Suit U.C.H. 12/70 Ughelli High Court Jan. 29, 1971.Google Scholar

48 Otuku & Ors v. Shell B.P. BHC/2/83 Bori High Court 5/1/85 (unreported).

49 Adewale, Bola, “Rylands v. Fletcher and the Nigerian Oil Industry” (unpublished).Google Scholar

50 These include act of God, neglect of the plaintiff, consent of the plaintiff, independent act of third party and statutory authority.

51 Amos & Ors v. Shell B.P. 1974 4 E.S.C.L.R. 48;Google ScholarOlaye v. N.A.O.C. 1973 2 R.S.L.R. 96.Google Scholar

52 Limitation Act 1966: after six years, an action becomes statute barred.

53 Thorsfall & Ors v. Shell B.P. 1974 2 R.S.L.R. 176.Google Scholar

54 Section 18.

55 N.A.O.C. Agricultural Project and Shell Community Development Project in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.