The Federal High Court sitting in Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, has struck out a preliminary objection filed by Aiteo in a suit instituted by the Opu Nembe Kingdom in Nembe Local Government Area over oil spills that impacted the community.
It was learnt that the company brought the objection because the community had misspelt its name in the suit as Aiteo Eastern Exploration and Production Company Limited instead of Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Limited.
It could be recalled that Shell Petroleum Development Company had in 2015 sold its OML 29 oil bloc to Aiteo, which currently operates in the area covering Opu Nembe and the neighbouring Otuabagi community where the legacy Oloibiri oil wells are located.
The suit it was learnt arises from three oil spills, two that occurred in September and October 2019, along the Botokiri axis of the Nembe Creek Trunk Line and at the Santa Barbara Well 1, respectively, and another in May 2020 at Well 9 in the Odeama Creek Oil Field, all of which the community says heavily impacted the environment and led to loss of livelihoods, amongst other damages.
Read also:
- Why Cross River is fighting to reclaim littoral status
- How gas can propel Nigeria towards industrialisation – Shell
- Commissioner applauds renovation of classrooms, exam hall of secondary school
On August 15, 2024, the Opu Nembe Kingdom, through King Iyerite Chiefson Awululu Atubu, Chief Ikaonaworio Eferebo-Igoma, Chief Dr. Markson Amaegbe-Tamuno, and Mr. Doibo Evans, approached the court seeking environmental justice and remediation.
In the suit marked FHC/YN/CS/284/2024, the community, through its lead counsel, Mr. Iniruo Wills of Ntephe Smith and Wills, is asking the court, among other reliefs, to declare that the massive spills resulted from operational failure and negligence by the oil company.
Delivering his ruling on Tuesday, Justice Emmanuel Ayo upheld the plaintiffs’ responses to the notice of preliminary objection and consequently struck out the objection filed by the defendant.
The court held that it could not allow technicalities to defeat the substance of the suit, especially as the plaintiffs had already filed a motion seeking to regularize the defendant’s name.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to April 16, 2026, for ruling on the motion seeking amendment of the defendant’s name.
