4.1 Liabilities for Oil Pollution
The term “liability” according to Blacks Law Dictionary is the quality or state of being legally obligated or accountable; Legal responsibility to another or to the society, enforceable by civil remedy or criminal punishment. In other words, it is a legal responsibility for something, especially for paying money that is owed or for damage or injury.
On the other hand, liability for oil pollution could then mean the legal responsibility for payment of compensation in lieu of damage arisen from oil pollution.
In Nigeria, there have been several incidences of oil pollution especially in the Niger Delta area resulting to destruction of farm lands and fish ponds leading to death of wishes which forms the means of lifelihood to the people of that area.
However, it is provided under the petroleum Act That:
The holder of an oil exploration license, oil prospecting license or oil mining lease, shall, in addition to any liability for compensation to which he may be subject under any other provision of this Act, be liable to pay fair and adequate compensation for the disturbance of surface or other rights to any person who owns or in lawful occupation of the licensed or leased lands.
In essence, the wrong in which the defendant was held liable could either be private or public in nature. In other words, the defendant company could either be liable in civil offence, in which case an action could be brought under tort for either damages or injunction or be responsible for criminal liability in which case there is more stiff penalty for either imprisonment with option of fine or both imprisonment and fine. As noted above the liabilities for oil pollution comprised of the followings;
i. Civil Liability for Oil Pollution:
The traditional rule of liability is applied here primarily to indemnify the victim of oil pollution of his losses and at the long run, to compel the oil company to put all practicable measures in place to prevent the possible re-occurrence of such incidents.
Furthermore, it is a prima facia evidence to establish by the victims or plaintiffs that there was a spill or escape of the defendant’s oil which resulted to the damage of the plaintiff’s property. This position has a nexus with the principle of strict liability propounded in the case of Ryland v. Fletcher (Supra) and has since be adopted in so many cases in Nigeria. Example was seen in the case of Sam Ikpede v. Shell BP Petroleum Development Co. Limited, where the court found the shell petroleum company liable dismissing the defense’ argument that the plaintiff failed to establish particular damage for reasonable and adequate compensation.
It is important to note that the leniency of the court in respect of oil pollution is restricted to the extent of the damage suffered by the individual or plaintiff seeking for compensation. Where the claims have some traces of public undertone, or where it is of the evidence that the defendant did not suffer specific damage, the court never hesitate to rule against such claimant. This example was found in the case of Douglas v. Shell BP & Ors.6 Here, the court denied the plaintiff an injunction brought to restrain the defendant from setting up its project pending the certification and approval of the environmental impact assessment agency.
Another instance where the court ruled out the claims of the plaintiff on the ground of the inability of the plaintiff to prove that he had suffered a specified damage is witnessed. In Chief A.S. Amos & Ors v. Shell BP Petroleum Development Co. (Nig) Ltd. In this case, the plaintiff/appellants claimed from the defendants/respondents special and general damages for nuisance, and for unlawful damages caused by the defendants by deliberately or negligently blocking for about three months the kolo creeks new waterways.
Evidently, it was revealed that the five plaintiffs, sued on behalf of the entire Brass division comprising 42 villages, which were spread several miles apart. However, the defendant proved to the satisfaction of the courts that before the construction of the temporary dam, compensation was negotiated and paid to the villagers. All the items of the special damages suffered were not established.
The learned trial judge held that the kolo creek is a public water ways and that its obstruction constituted a public nuisance. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs/appellants agreed that the nuisance complained was a public nuisance but maintained that they ought at, least to have been awarded “general damages”, since the defense admitted in evidence that the blocking caused the plaintiff inconvenience.
The appeal was dismissed as the Supreme Court was satisfied that the learned trial judge expressed the correct statement of the law. And on the finding of fact as found by him. The foregoing, not withstanding, the court has in no less occasions taken steps to remediate the effects of oil pollution on the victims by way of award of damages in Lieu of compensation. Several cases to this effect have been cited in this work. And compensation proper will be discussed under 4.2 of this chapter.
ii. Criminal Liability for Oil Pollution
Nigerian legal system had made the offences of oil pollution a criminal offence with stiff penalties. Under the criminal code Act, it is a misdemeanors offence with six months imprisonment, to corrupt or foul any water or spring, stream, well, tank or reservoir or place so as to render it less fit applicable to an offence of noxious act.
Similarly, various offences created under the oil in navigable waters Act, 1968, including discharge of oil into the prohibited sea areas, failure to report presence of oil in the Harbour Waters and failure to keep oil reception facilities by the Harbour authorities, have already been discussed under chapter two of this work.
Nature of Defences For Oil Pollution Damage
The most discouraging things about these offenses are the defenses available for them. Except of cause, the defenses of event of war, natural causes and act of God, the defense of discharge of oil for the purpose of saving vessels or life at sea provided under S. 4(1) of the act is unthinkable. Because, it would rather be a misplacement of fact to permit an act in order to save few lives which at the long run, will cost the lives of so many other individuals snot comparable in number to the few lives saved. Perhaps, the balance of the importance of lives on boarding a ship and the lives of those other large number of individuals which will invariably be affected by the cause of the discharge of oil on the sea is practically, in comprehensible.
Again, it seems that the oil companies sometimes take undue advantage of the provision of s. 22 (1) of F.E.P.A, where it provides inter alia that compensation shall not be paid for any damage resulting from oil pollution which occurred as a result of natural causes or act of sabotage. Since no modality was provided by the law for proving this act of sabotage, the oil companies have often time take cover on this defense. Example was seen in Friday Alfred Akpan v. shell where in an action for compensation for damage to fishponds, streams, farmland, and economic trees, the court held that the defense of act of sabotage avails the defendant company.
4.2 Compensation and the challenges of its adequacy under the Nigerian L. It was commented per Ogbuigwe, that “pollution is not a necessary and inevitable phenomenon in an oil producing country”. In other words, the environmental problems created by the multinational oil companies in Nigeria are indeed preventable.
In view of the above, the oil pipeline Act and the petroleum Act, - 55 - in their various provisions, made the holder of an oil license liable to pay compensation to any person who suffered damage by the reasons of its negligence resulting to oil pollution in Nigeria. The term ‘compensation’ has been defined as;
A pecuniary remedy that is be awarded to an individual who has sustained an injury in order to replace the damage caused by the injury.13
The various provisions of the laws stated above envisaging the payment of compensation in relief of damage suffered by the victims of oil pollution, to my humble opinion, is the most appropriate panacea to such circumstance. Although these laws, in its provision omitted the definition of what constitute adequate compensation leaving it to discretion of the court with jurisdiction to entertain oil pollution matters. (Jurisdiction of the courts in respect to oil pollution has been discoursed in chapter three of this work). It is not in doubt however, that Nigerian judicial system, the court for instance, has construed as matter of seriousness the issues of compensation to the victims of oil pollution vis-à-vis the strict application of section 11(1-5) of the pipeline Act.14This forms the dictum of the court Per Ovia Whiskey in San Ikpede v. The Shell BP Petroleum Development Co. Ltd,15 that:
All companies who have been granted a license to prospect for crude oil in this country under the petroleum Decree 1969 No. 51 can only lay pipelines carrying crude oil on or under the land by virtue of a license granted to them under the provisions of the oil pipelines Act, shall pay compensation to any one suffering damages as a result of its operation.
However, the provisions of the legal instruments above, has made clear the legal position on compensation for oil spillage in Nigeria. Having noticed the legal position in respect to payment of compensation for oil pollution damage aforesaid another question that comes to mind is how does courts go about the measurement of the amount of compensation accruable to a particular damage so as to adequately quantify the cost incurred by the victim.
An answer to the above question is provided for by the oil pipeline Act under section 19 (3) where it provided as follows;
In determining the value of loss or interests in land of a claimant, the court shall assess the value of the land or interests injuriously affected at the date immediately before the grant of the license and shall assess the residual value to the claimant of the same land or interest consequent upon and at the date of the grant of the license and shall determine the loss suffered by the claimant as the different between the value so found, if such residual values is a lesser sum.
The provision is to my humble view, ridiculous, and can never fit in as accurate mechanism for measuring quantum of compensation for economic loss over a period of time. The act itself is not unaware of the confusion and inaccuracy occasioned by this section, hence, it provided under subsection (6) that:
If the total sum awarded by the court in accordance with this section does not exceed an amount already offered to the claimant by the holder of the license, the court may order such holder to pay the cost of the proceedings. If the sums so awarded exceed the amount offered to such claimants, the court shall either order the claimant to pay the cost of the proceedings or order each side to bear its own cost.
Commonsensical, the value, extent or quantum of loss is rather determined by the actual economic value of the item, commodity or interest upon which such loss is incurred at the point of the incident words, the loss could rather be measured based on the economic value of such interest at immediately before or after the occurrence of the damage. Putting into consideration all the circumstances and factors which might have directly or indirectly affects the extent of compensation to the damage incurred.
Similarly, G.O. Uduehi in his book, highlighted some factors that could affect quantum of compensation for oil pollution to includes;
(a) Population and the type of community affected;
(b) The size of the crops affected, whether they are seedlings, medium or mature; the amount of money put in their care and the farm-gate prize of the items;
(c) The area polluted; whether it is an area of high value of land or riot;
(d) Time of the year: whether the pollution occurs in the dry or rainy season and
(e) The fact that pollution at times acts as fertilizer which could at the long run be to the advantage of the victims in future.
Apart from measurement of quantum of compensation, the second issue attempted to address by subsection (6) of the oil pipeline Act (Supra) is the settlement prior to court action by the parties. This subsection pre-empted a circumstance where either of the parties to the negotiation for settlement of damage resulting from oil pollution will discover an omission or mistake from either side and decided to approach the court to seek redress for such mistake. It then provides that the court in determining the issue, will order either the claimant, where the total sum offered to him by the defendant company in the prior agreement, exceed the amounts of damages awarded by the court or the defendant where such award or damage is not in excess of the prior arrangement to pay the costs of the court proceedings. This was the contention in Odim & Ors v. SPDC (Nig) Ltd, where the claimant went to the court subsequent to earlier negotiation before him and the polluter wherein he had already collected certain amount of money as settlement for the damage done to his farmland, economic trees and fishponds. He contended that the amount he negotiated to collect for the damage was not commensurable to the loss he incurred. He therefore sought an award of N56, 687, 83 as an unpaid balance of compensation adequate to quantify his loss . The court held that the prior settlement was due and adequate and in line with the provisions of the Oil Pipeline Act, and that further payment could not be contemplated.
However, the truth remains that the yardstick for assessing quantum of compensation is directly depended upon the open market value of the subject matter at that point in time. On the other hand, the position of the court in Odim’s case above is appropriate. It would have been unconscionable for the court to decide otherwise, considering the fact that one is not expected to approbate and reprobate at the same time, not even in such a serious matter.
Furthermore, it has been acknowledged that such factors as; social and economic factors are also put into consideration by the courts in determining of these cases involving the oil company. Thus, in any instances where the claims of the victim is so outrageous that it could force the oil company out of business thereby rendering hundreds and thousands of oil workers, jobless, the court never hesitate to turn-down such prayer. It was a similar fact of this nature that forms “ratio decidendi” in Allar Iron v. Shell BP, where the court refuse to grant an injunction restraining the defendant further operation on the instance of the plaintiff. The judge considered among other things that if such injunction is granted, it could stripped the defendant of his trade and render many workers who are engaged with the company jobless.
In consideration of what constitute fair and adequate compensation: steps are being queued along side the analysis above. Perhaps, the “locus classicus” in respect to compensation in Nigeria, (the petroleum Act), only provides that;
The holder of an oil exploration license, oil prospecting license, or oil mining lease, shall in addition to any liability for compensation to which he may be subjected under any other provision of this Act, be liable to pay fair and adequate compensation for the disturbances of surface or other rights to any person who owns or is in lawful occupation of the license or leased lands.
The Supreme Court C. Per Ademola J.N, had earlier on tried to bring out steps that could lead to the determination of what amounts to reasonable compensation. To wit: proving the loss by the claimant who is to be compensated. Followed by the measurement of the alteration caused by the disturbance without which the thing would otherwise had continued.
The position of the learned judge above was clearly illustrated in the following English case, Birmingham City Corporation v. West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association (inc), where Lord Morris, opined as follows:
Compensation for disturbance is either the replacement costs or costs of resettlement. And this cost must be the cost of something that is to take the place of what is taken away. That cost must however, be the reasonable cost. The reasonable cost, depending on the facts of particular case, will be the actual incurred or can be expected to incur: it will be such cost at the time when equivalent reinstatement does or should take place.
All the above statutory and judicial positions are in agreement and had established a common ground that the issue of what constitutes fair and adequate compensation is determined by the court and by the court alone not only in Nigeria but also under English judicial system. As seen in Birmingham City Corporation Case (supra).
4.3 The Victims Legal Rights over Oil and Industrial Pollution
Before the advent of oil in commercial quantity in Nigeria, there has been a judicial recognition of individual rights to property and compensation for infringement on such rights in Nigeria. Even during the colonial era, 1903, to be precise, the Supreme courts of the colony, Per Viscount Haldane, held among other things that
although government may take any land acquired for public purposes, it must do so in consideration of a compensation to be agreed on or determined by the Supreme Court of the colony.
And that the court is to assess the compensation according to the value at the time when the notice was served, inclusive of damage done by severance.
Similarly, right to property is recognized and constitutionally empowered under Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. And such immovable property as provided by the Constitution is inclusive of land. However, it is also followed that act of possession or enjoyment of such land may be evidence of ownership.
Having established the individual ownership and right to property in Nigeria, it therefore follows that any infringement on these rights of persons will definitely result to legal action. Such infringement could be as a result of an unlawful act to such property. And an unlawful Act to property is defined under section 440 of the Criminal Code Act, to mean
An act which causes injury to the property of another and which is done without his consents is unlawful, unless it is authorized or justified by law.
Further recognition for individual rights to property such as land has been further stretched under section 14 of the land use Act, where it provides as follows;
Subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any laws relating to prospecting for mineral oils or to mining or to oil pipelines and subject to the terms and conditions of any contract made under section 8, the occupier shall have exclusive rights to the land the subject of the statutory right of occupancy against all persons other than the Governor.
The Act aforesaid further provide for compensation under section 29, payable to the holder of the right of occupancy, in any event of revocation by the government. Section 30 of the Act, however, provided that
where arises any dispute as to the amount of compensation calculated in accordance with the provision of section 29 of this Act, such dispute shall be referred to the appropriate land use and Allocation Committee.
This provision was carefully followed by the court in Attorney General of Bendel State & 2 Ors v. Adeyan. wherein the Court of Appeal sitting in Benin was supported by the Supreme Court both upheld the judgment of learned justice Moje Bare J. of the Benin High Court who had earlier on awarded the sum of N1,500.000.00 as fair and adequate compensation for the plaintiff’s story building converted for public use by the government.
Consequently, considering that one’s constitutional right to property is inviolable, it therefore suffice that such right is not questionable nor can be denied of the holder. The court had followed the provision of section 35 of the Evidence Act (supra), in arriving in its decision in Hallelujah Bukuma Fishers Development Co. (Nig) Ltd. v. SPDC (Nig) Ltd. In this case, the defense counsel had contended that the plaintiff cannot claim damages for his right in creek unless he can show that he had exclusive right to fish therein. The learned judge held that the plaintiff need not establish an exclusive right in the Bukuma Creeks and that his common right for fishing in the tidal waters is recognized and cannot be derogated from.
Evidently, the citizen’s right to property which gave rise to further right to legal action has been widely acknowledge under the Nigerian legal system. Good number of examples had been provided above. But it is also a notorious fact that some factors have placed constraint on the attainment of these rights. Such factors as follows have in one way or the other hampered the victim’s interest in pursuing their cause through judicial means in Nigeria.
(1) Financial constraint: Money plays a very big role in pursuing cases in court. For victim to have his case filed in court by his legal representative, he ought to have paid his consultation cum professional fees and other payments. And most at times, some of these oil pollution victims are mere peasants farmers who mainly depended on their farm produce for food and financial means. To some of them, the only important issue to address in the event of oil pollution is how to feed their family. Pursuing compensation in court form a secondary matter, that is where there is extra fund to so do.
(2) Delay in court litigation: Another important issue which negate the interest of the oil pollution victim in pursuing their cases in Nigerian courts is the unending proceedings that characterize litigations in court. After several adjournment in court, a bored victim would rather prefer to lose the advance payment he made to his lawyer than going to listen to endless ranting in court at the expense of his time. It was upon these facts that I found my basis for recommending A.D.R. as an alternate to court litigation in determining compensation for damage caused by oil pollution under 4.5 of this chapter. Other factors includes; illiteracy and lack of interest.
4.4 Compliance to International Standard on Oil Pollution Management and Determining Quantum of Compensation for oil Pollution Damages
Oil pollution is a global phenomenon with a uniformed effect. The nature of oil pollution damage has remained the same in the world over irrespective of continental, regional and sub-regional differences.
The United Nation (UN) has in an attempt to provide “a like term” system of tackling oil pollution insurgency, organized several fora, wherein diverse opinions and ideas of committee of nations were collected together and put to use in the management of oil pollution damage and the matters of compensation. Some of these international conventions had already been discussed in chapter 2 of this work and more will still be mentioned at the cause of completing this chapter.
In 1994, a guideline for admissibility and assessment of claims for oil pollution damage was adopted in Sydney at the 35th International Conference of the Committee Maritime International (C.M.I) held on 2nd -8th Oct. 1994 in Sydney. One of the objects of this convention had been drawn up in the belief that many national courts will thrive, when applying laws based on International Convention, to do so in a manner which is consistent with the approach taken in other countries.
Some of the provisions of this Convention will be considered side by side with Nigerian practices. Article 2 of the Convention, provides that compensation may be refused if a claimant fails to take reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate any loss, damage or expense. The real interpretation of this provision presupposes that the claimants have some duties and responsibilities on their side in preventing or mitigating the effect of pollution damage which could form their defense of good fate in court in an action for oil pollution damage.
In Nigeria however, such question as whether the claimant in any way attempted preventing or mitigating the effect of the pollution is rare. Usually in Nigerian instances, immediately the claimant establishes a prima facia case that pollution was caused by the activities of the defendants and that the pollution destroyed his property, then the challenge shifted to the court on how to measure the extent of the damage caused in lieu of determining quantum of compensation. It is important to note that the expenses incurred in respect to the preventive measure is to be borne by the polluter as provided under Article 10 (a) of the Convention.
In compliance to the above, a Federal Judge in Louisiana (the jurisdiction of Mexico) has awarded the total sum of 7.8 billion U.S. dollars in Re oil spillage case on 21st Dec. 2012. For the settlement of damage for those affect by the BP 2013 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The learned Judge stated that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate. One thing that is important about this case is that the compensation covers 2.3 billion dollars spent on the mitigation of the effects of the pollution by the seafood compensation program.
Furthermore, Article 6(1), provide that each state party must establish a national system for responding promptly and effectively to oil pollution incidence. Note that Nigeria is also a signatory to this convention. Expectedly, the only thing in doubt about this provision is whether Nigerian government has a functional system or agency that respond even if it is partially to mitigate the effect of oil pollution incidents. It is noted in Re oil spill case (supra) that a certain amount was awarded to the sea food crew as a compensation for economic loss resulting from mitigation of oil pollution damage. This demonstrate to a great extent that the provisions of the convention had been strictly followed in other jurisdictions of the world.
Having expounded the above evaluation, I am tempted to take side with Oladele G.A. in his article where he said
The oil pollution laws in Nigeria are not comprehensive enough to effectively control and prevent oil pollution in the country. Even the existing ones have not been reviewed in a long time. The penalties stipulated under the FEPA Act and the oil in Navigable waters Act are too liberal. The amount of fine and terms of imprisonment stipulated is just low considering the devastating effects of oil pollution on the Nigerian environment and on the lives of people living in oil producing areas (Niger-Delta area).
With the avalanche of evidences above, it cannot be out of place to say that Nigeria has not fully complied with the international standard in the management of oil pollution damage.
4.5 Alternative Dispute Resolution (A.D.R) as an Alternate to Litigation for Oil Pollution Damage
The premise that the society should not exclusively rely on the courts for resolution of disputes, becomes the idea of Alternative Dispute Resolution. A.D.R has been defined in the Black Law Dictionary as A procedure for settling dispute by means other than litigation such as arbitration or mediation.
The idea of adopting alternative dispute resolution by the victims of oil pollution damage in pressing home demand for adequate compensation was aptly conceived by the concluding part of section 11 (5) of the pipeline Act, where it provides among other things, that,
If the amount of compensation to be paid is not agreed between such persons and the holder of the license, such compensation shall be fixed by a court in accordance with part iv of this Act.
The above provisions presuppose that the claimants can exploit their agitations through all the available alternative means of settlement. And if a reasonable agreement in respect to ascertaining the adequate compensation commensurable to the loss incurred is not feasible, then they can approach the court for judicial intervention. The provision of this section was judiciously followed by the court in Odim’s case (supra) where the court ruled that the amount collected by the claimant in out of court settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and as such, for closes further court award.
However, the importance of A.D.R as an alternative to court litigation to settlement of oil pollution matters cannot be over emphasized. The victims is disposed to make a choice from all the available methods of resolving disputes, be it Negotiation, Medialion, Arbitration, or any other mechanism of their choice. What is important is that they are at liberty to control the very process that decides their rights.
As a matter of emphasis, the benefits derived from A.D.R cannot be adequately expressed in the cause of this work. However, one of its important that has a direct proximity to the object of this work is that with A.D.R, such issues as lack of jurisdiction will not be raised to deny the victim of his right to compensation. In a good number of cases, an attempt have been made by the defense counsel to terminate the claimants hope for compensation in court on the ground that such court lack jurisdiction to entertain the matter. An example of this is witnessed in Ports and Cargo Handling Service Co. Ltd & Ors v. Migfo (Nig) Ltd & Ano, in this case, the defending counsel, had contended that Federal High Court sitting in Lagos Lack the jurisdiction to entertain admiralty matter. But the court held against such contention and declared that it had jurisdiction over such matter.
Secondly, the process and nature of alternative dispute resolution is rather facilitating easy assess to justice and minimizing costs and delay in reaching decision. It is obvious fact that the highly expensive nature of count process had denied many victims not only the victims of oil pollution pursuing litigation in court, assess to justice. And the most offensive part of it all is time wastage due to congestion already prevalent in the court system.
With the expositions above, it is admitable that litigation may not ‘’with all due examination carried out already’’, standout as the best form of dispute resolution. And what more, the claimant of compensation for oil pollution damage are advised to adopt Alternative Dispute Resolution ADR in seeking for their rights. Considering the fact that the process of Alternative Dispute Resolution will always give them the opportunity to have a say in measuring what they receive as adequate and fair compensation. Unlike the process where such decision as what constitute reasonable, fair and adequate compensation is left in the hands of the judge a lone.
 Brayan A. Garner, “et al” Law Dictionary, 9th edition (West Publishing Co. 2009).P997
 Paragraph 37 of the first schedule of the petroleum Act, Cap. P10 L.F.N., 2010
 A tort may be defined broadly as a civil wrong involving a breach of duty fixed by the law such duty being owned to persons generally and its breach being redressible primarily by an action for damages.
 (5)  M.W.S.J. 61 pages 88-89, per Ovia Wisky J.
  6NWLR(Pt350) P.256
 6 S.C. 109 at page 114
 Cap C38, Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010. Section 245.
 S. 247 ibid (a) vitiates the atmosphere in any place, so as to make it noxious to the health of persons generally dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way or (b) does any act which he knows or has reason to believe to be likely to spread the infection of any diseased dangerous to life whether, human or animal is guilty of misdemeanour and it is liable to imprisonment to six months.
 Oil in Navigable Waters Act, Cap 06 Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010.
 Federal Environmental Protection Act Cap. F10 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010.
 Supra P5
 Ogbuigwe “Compensation and Liability on Oil Pollution in Nigeria” (J.P.P.L,1985) P23
 Section 11 (5) of the Oil Pipeline Act Cap. 145 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010.
 Paragraph 37 Regulation I of the Petroleum Act Cap. Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2010.
 Cap. 145, L.F.N., 2010. Which provides among other things that the holder of such license shall pay compensation to any person suffering damage as a consequence of any leakage from pipeline (18) 
M.W.S.J (Pt. 61) Psy.88-89.
 G.O. Uduehi, “Public land Acquisition and Compensation Practice in Nigeria” ( John west Publication, Ikeaja,1987) p. 119-
 2 R.S.L.R (Pt. 93) at 109, Per Wai-Ogbosu J.
 Cap. 145, L.F.N 2010; S. 11 (5), “a holder of pipeline license is obliged to pay compensation to any person who suffers loss or damage caused by the leakage or breakage of an oil pipeline or any ancillary installation. However, if the amount of the compensation is not agreed between the parties, it shall be fixed by a court in accordance with part IV of the Act.
  Unreported. Suit No. w/89/71190 available at htt/./www.vathek.org/enlr.2012.14.4348 searched on 10/07/2013.
 Cap. P. 10 L.F.N., 2010, Paragraph 37 of the First Schedule
 William v. Kamond 1 All N.L.R (Pt. 399) Ps.406-407; “A claimant who is to be compensated for disturbances has to prove loss resulting from that disturbance. The disturbance consists in the alteration of something that would otherwise have continued.
 1969]2 All E.R, 172 p. 185.
 Amodu Tijani v. The Secretary of Southern Province  www.Nigeria-law.org/Amodu % 2520 Tijani searched on 04/07/2013.28 S. 43 of the Constitution of the F.R.N., 1999 (as amended) which provides as follows, “subject to the provisions to acquire and own movable and immovable property anywhere in Nigeria.
 S. 43 of the Constitution of the F.R.N., 1999 (as amended), provides as follows, “subject to the provisions of this constitution, every citizen of Nigeria shall have right to acquire and own movable and immovable property anywhere in Nigeria.
 Evidence Act 2011. Section 35.
 Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, L.F.N., 2010.
 Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, L.F.N., 2010
 SC 131 Per Nnaemeka-Agu J.S.C.
 SC 131 Per Nnaemeka-Agu J.S.C.
 The C.M.I has as its objectives the unification of maritime laws, and since its foundation in 1897, it has been wholly or partly responsible for the preparatory work leading to several international conventions in the maritime field. Not less than 88 states have ratified this convention including Nigeria.
 For more on committee Maritme International C.M.I see Guideline on oil pollution Damage-Committee Maritime Int’l,www.committeemaritime.org
 Article 10(a) of the Convention provides that “The costs of preventive measures includes (clean-up and disposal) is recoverable in so far as both the measures themselves and the cost thereof were reasonable in the particular circumstances.
 Re-oil Spill, by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horison in the Gulf of Mexico, April 20, 2010. Unreported suit No.
10-02179, 2012-wL6652608 (E.D.La.Dec.21,2012)www.blog.Thomasorcuters.com/index.php/j searched on
 International Convention on Oil Pollution Response and Co-operation 1990.
 Oladele G.A. A Comparative Study of the Legal Control of Oil Pollution in Nigeria and under International
Law. Commercial and Industrial Law journal (Faculty of Law Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki Heirloom Educational Service, 2012) Vol. 1 2012 P144.
 Brayan A. Garner et al., (Op. Cit).
 Negotiation is a voluntary process by which two disputing parties negotiate with each other for the purpose of reaching compromise.
 Mediation is another method of resolving dispute wherein a neutral third party (mediator), assist two or more parties in dispute to reach an agreement.
 Mediation is another method of resolving dispute wherein a neutral third party (mediator), assist two or more parties in dispute to reach an agreement.
 Arbitration is a mechanism for dispute resolution wherein the disputing parties agreed to appoint a neutral
third party (an arbiter, who assist the parties to come to terms which is usually binding.
 11 N.W.L.R CA/L/214M/07.
THIS IS A SAMPLE | WE ARE PROFESSIONALS IN WRITING
At Martins Library, We provide Informative Materials for Writing Books, Projects, Seminars, Journals, Articles, Proposals, Feasibility Study Etc For Business And Educational Purposes.
Click on the related links below and read more.
We can keep you updated on this information, please Subscribe for Free by entering your email address in the space provided.
Do you like this article? Share this articleCONTACT US TODAY FOR OUR SERVICES