Benue Court dismisses N500m pollution case against quarry company

A Benue State High Court sitting in Otukpo has dismissed a suit seeking a N500 million damages against Rockbridge Construction Limited over its alleged hazardous quarrying activities in a community in Benue State.

Justice G.A. Omale held in a judgment, that the quality and quantum of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs was not sufficient, convincing and strong enough to sustain the reliefs claimed.

Three aggrieved indigenes of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community of Ohimini Local Government Council in Benue State had sued Rockbridge Construction Ltd and Chief Bernard Ejembi for himself and on behalf of Alaglanu Clan/Settlement in Ohimini local government as 1st and 2nd defendants.

The plaintiffs, Adoga Michael, Aiko Aboje and Frank Adigwu, through their Counsel, P.A Omengala had filed the suit for themselves and on behalf of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community of the State.

They said they are farmers and indigenes of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu in Oglewu District of Ohimini local government and residents in the said community.

The plaintiffs said they are also the youth leaders of the community and have the mandate and the authorisation of the entire community to maintain the action on their behalf and against the named defendants.

They sought the sum of N500 million jointly and severally against the defendants “being general damages for the environmental pollution, damage to buildings/structures, general inconveniences and associated health hazard occasioned by the activities of the 1st defendant in connivance with the 2nd defendant.”

In the writ of summons dated October 28, 2022, they also sought an order compelling the defendants to give effect to the recommendations of the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) vide Ref No: NESREA/BNS/RCC/53/25 dated the 26th January, 2017.

They sought an order compelling the company to suspend further quarrying activities in Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu in Oglewu District of Ohimini local government of Benue State, pending full compliance with the recommendation of NESREA vide its report of 26th January, 2017.

But Rockbridge Construction Limited, through its lead counsel, Emmanuel Ekpenyong urged the court to dismiss the suit.

The company, in its final written address, argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the grounds that issues relating to mines, minerals and quarrying are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

Also in its statement of defence dated November 30, 2022, and filed by Ekpenyong, the company denied all the allegations of the plaintiffs and argued that by a letter dated October 7, 2022, the elders of the community had withdrawn their support from the plaintiffs, stating that “the plaintiffs do not represent their interest.”

It further argued that contrary to the contention of the plaintiffs, the company’s quarrying activities at the site had no negative effect and has not caused any hardship to the Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Village because the site is far from the village.

The company insisted that its quarrying activities have no hazardous effect in the area and is conducted in line with international best practices.and argued that it was not privy to the plaintiffs’ community letter of complaint to the Federal Mines Officer, Mines Inspectorate Department, Makurdi.

Rockbridge Construction faulted the plaintiffs’ claim that NESREA carried out an investigation on its quarrying activities and returned with a damning verdict against it when there is a subsisting Environmental Audit Certificate issued by NESREA to it.

Chief Ejembi, in his final written address filed by his lawyer, Sunday Ayegba, prayed the court to resolve the three issues raised in the suit in favour of the defendants and dismiss the suit.

In his deposition on oath, Ejembi, who said he is the Alaglanu clan head and resides at Alaglanu-Oglewu Community, averred that the elders of Awulema Community denied any involvement in the letter of pre-action served on the company and the subsequent filing of the present case.

Ejembi said the plaintiffs do not have their residences within the community to suffer any form of inconvenience to his knowledge.

Besides, he said that the quarrying and crushing site was a reserved area of land by Alaglanu Community for quarrying activities since the year 1960 and the site had existed as such and in use by several road construction companies and stone breaking companies.

He urged the court to strike out his name from the suit since no cause of action was established against him.

Delivering the Judgment on June 30, 2025, and a certified true copy of it made available to newsmen on Monday in Abuja, Justice Omale overruled the company’s argument that it was only the Federal High Court that had the jurisdiction to decide the matter.

“There is nowhere in the constitution or any other enactment the Federal High Court is clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to determine cases founded on tortious offences, notwithstanding the parties involved.

“By the provision of Section 271(1), the State High Court has the jurisdiction to determine matter as it relates to civil rights and obligations of citizens. This leg of the objection by the defence counsel fails and it is hereby overruled,” the judge said.

Justice Omale also resolved the argument that the plaintiffs’ case was caught up by the provision of Section 18 of the Benue State Limitation Law Cap 98, Laws of Benue State, 2004, against the defendants.

Justice Omale, however, struck out the name of Chief Bernard Ejembi, the 2nd defendants, from the suit and agreed with his counsel’s argument that there was no cause of action established against Ejembi notwithstanding that he was sued in a representative capacity.

The judge held that the plaintiffs failed to offer credible evidence to demonstrate Exhibit D, which was the NESREA Report they presented which itemised certain steps the agency directed the company to comply with within 14 days.

He however, agreed with the company that it had complied with the environmental standards going by its Exhibit D1 tendered which was the Environmental Audit Certificate issued on April 5, 2022 by NESREA.

“NESREA is the body authorised by law to issue Exhibit D1. In my humble view, Exhibit D1 is a reliable and strong evidence of compliance with Environmental Standards by the defendant (Company).

“Exhibit D1 has not been impeached before me and it is a reliable evidence in favour of the defendant that it is in full compliance with the Environmental Standard prescribed by law.

“In my view, Reliefs B and C in the plaintiffs’ claim can no longer be granted in view of Exhibit D1.”

The judge also discountenanced the arguments of the plaintiffs on the grounds that no documentary evidence, including a medical report, was tendered before the court to prove that they had suffered losses with respect to the quarrying activities of the company.

According to the judge, the law is settled that it is the duty of court to consider the evidence produced before it and never to proceed to indulge in speculation as to what might have happened.

The judge also agreed with Ekpenyong’s argument that the evidence of an expert was necessary to establish that it was the quarrying activities of the defendant that caused injury to the plaintiffs, their buildings and farms as well as the other members of the community.

He said, “The law is settled that in a case predicated on the tort of nuisance, it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish particular, direct and substantial damage in order to succeed.

“The law is that in an action of this nature, damages must be proved.
Since the measure of damages in an action for negligence Is founded on the principle of restititio in intergrum, there must be sufficient credible evidence to justify the exercise of the discretion of the court in favour of the plaintiffs.

“From all that I have said, it is my humble view that the quality and quantum of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs is not sufficient, convincing and strong enough to sustain the reliefs claimed.

“The plaintiffs have failed to prove their case with credible evidence as required by law. The claim of the plaintiffs fails and it is accordingly dismissed”, the Judge held.

READ MORE FROM: NIGERIAN TRIBUNE