Key Facts
- •On December 20, 2011, the Bonga oil spill occurred in the Bonga oilfield off the coast of Nigeria.
- •The spill was caused by a rupture in one of the pipelines connecting the Bonga FPSO to a single point mooring system.
- •Approximately 40,000-42,500 barrels of oil were spilled.
- •Proceedings were brought by 27,830 individual claimants and 479 Nigerian communities against Shell.
- •Claimants alleged that oil from the spill caused damage to land, water supplies, and fishing waters.
- •The key issues were the date of actionable damage, the applicable limitation period under Nigerian law, and the authority of claimants' solicitors.
- •Claimants argued that oil remained trapped and was remobilized years later, impacting communities in 2014 and 2015.
- •Defendants argued that the spill was contained and cleaned up, and that any later damage was due to other sources of pollution.
- •The court considered extensive expert evidence on oil spill behavior, fate, and migration, as well as Nigerian law on limitation and authority.
Legal Principles
Limitation of Actions
Limitation of Actions Act 1623, Delta State Limitation Law 2006, Interpretation Act 1964, Rome II Regulation (EC) No.864/2007
Jurisdiction of Federal High Court
Nigerian Constitution, Federal High Court Act
Authority to bring proceedings
Nigerian common law, Nigerian customary law, Evidence Act 2011
Outcomes
The applicable limitation period is five years under the Delta State Limitation Law.
The Federal High Court in Delta State has jurisdiction, and state limitation laws apply to proceedings in that court, even those involving federal jurisdiction. The court found that the claimants' argument based on Rome II and the Nigerian EEZ was not persuasive.
Claimants failed to prove that Bonga oil caused damage in 2014-2015.
The court found the claimants' experts' theories of oil trapping, remobilization, and inland migration implausible due to lack of supporting evidence, including contemporaneous records, samples, and plausible mechanisms. Alternative sources of pollution were identified.
Claimants' solicitors have limited authority to act.
While customary law allows community leaders to act on behalf of communities concerning communal land, it does not extend to individual private rights without express consent. The court found that the evidence of customary law provided was not sufficient to grant the solicitors full authority.