Benue Quarry Dispute: Firm Urges Court To Dismiss N500m Suit

Rockbridge Construction Limited has urged a Benue State High Court sitting in Otukpo to dismiss a suit filed by three aggrieved indigenes of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community of Ohimini local government council in Benue over alleged hazardous quarrying activities.

The company, in its final written address filed by its team of lawyers, led by Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. of the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP before Justice G.A. Omale, argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit since issues relating to mines and minerals are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

The plaintiffs, Adoga Michael, Aiko Aboje and Frank Adigwu, had filed the suit for themselves and on behalf of the Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu community of Ohimini local government council in the state.

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

They said they are the community’s youth leaders and have the mandate and the authorisation of the community to maintain the action on their behalf and against the named defendants.

 

The plaintiffs sued Rockbridge Construction and Chief Bernard Ejembi, as first and second defendants, for themselves and on behalf of the Alaglanu Clan/Settlement in the local government.

 

The plaintiffs sought 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 Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Village/Settlement in Oglewu District of Ohimini local government council of Benue State.”

 

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 January 26, 2017.

 

They equally sought an order compelling the company to suspend further activities in Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu in the Oglewu district of the local government in Benue State, pending full compliance with NESREA’s recommendation in its report of 26 January 2017.

 

However, in its statement of defence dated November 30, 2022, and filed by Ekpenyong, the company denied all the plaintiffs’ allegations.

 

Rockbridge Construction argued that the plaintiffs are not representing the interests of the Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu community because its elders have disassociated themselves from them.

 

It stated that the elders maintained that the community would continue to enjoy a good relationship with the company.

 

The company said that in a letter dated October 7, 2022, the community elders withdrew their support from the plaintiffs, stating that “the plaintiffs do not represent their interest.”

 

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, its quarrying activities at the site have no adverse effect or caused any hardship to the Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Village because the site is far from the village.

 

According to the company, the first defendant has been carrying out quarrying activities at the site for close to 17 years, and if its quarrying activities have been affecting the plaintiffs, they will not wait until after 17 years to complain.

 

It insisted that its quarrying activities have no hazardous effects in the area.

 

Besides, the company argued that it is 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 a damning verdict against it when NESREA itself issued a subsisting Environmental Audit Certificate.

 

The company, however, stated that it is not aware of NESREA’s investigation or its report dated January 26, 2017, on its investigations against it and urged the court not to attach any weight to the purported report because it was a copy of a public document that was admitted.

 

“This shows the report was not from proper custody,” it said.

 

In his final written address, Ekpenyong equally argued that the issuance and service of the originating processes in the suit marked OHC/85/2022 outside the jurisdiction of Benue State are incompetent, defective, and liable to be struck out because leave of Court was not sought and obtained before commencing the suit against the company, which has its place of business in Abuja.

 

He said the plaintiffs also failed to comply with the provisions of Sections 96 and 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act.

 

“Rockbridge Construction Company Limited, in which the plaintiffs sued, is neither a natural, juristic, nor corporate person.

 

“It is also not a proper, desirable and necessary party in this suit, so the name should be struck out.

 

“The plaintiffs have no locus standi to institute this suit in a representative capacity on behalf of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community.

 

“The plaintiffs have not proven by any credible evidence, by calling expert witnesses to testify, that they have suffered injury as a result of the purported acts of negligence of the company.

 

“The plaintiffs’ claims against the party are caught up with the defence of volenti non fit injuria,” the lawyer said.

 

He further submitted that the company has prepared a formidable defence on the merits against the plaintiffs’ claims in court.

 

He also said that the first defendant (company) has shown that it discharged its obligations to the Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community at the material time.

 

According to him, the party was denied its right to a fair hearing during the trial of this suit.

 

“This honourable court does not have territorial, procedural and subject matter jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

 

“On a balance of probability, the party has proved its case and is entitled to judgment in its favour,” he added.

 

Therefore, Ekpenyong urged the court to dismiss the suit as frivolous, lacking merit, and an abuse of court process.

 

In his final written address filed by his lawyer, Sunday Ayegba, Chief Ejembi 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 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.

 

He said they wrote a letter dated 7 October 2022, in which the elders stated that they did not agree with the plaintiffs’ letter of pre-action.

 

He alleged that the elders maintained in the letter that they were in a good relationship with the company.

 

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 the Alaglanu Community for the same purpose since 1960. The site had existed as such and was used by several road construction companies and stone-breaking companies.

 

However, in the final written address filed on December 5, 2024, by the plaintiffs’ counsel, P.A. Omengala, they urged the court to enter judgment in their favour regarding their claims.

 

They said that they have proved their case to be entitled to the court’s judgment in that the suit is not statute-barred, nor is the defence’s argument of volenti non fit injuria applicable, and the same has not been pleaded.

 

The plaintiffs also submitted that the court has the power to discountenance the addresses of the defendants, having not addressed the basic issues in the case.

 

They said that upon service of the originating process on the company and Ejembi, they filed their statements of defence.

 

They said the company, however, filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the substantive suit on several grounds.

 

The plaintiffs said they filed their response to the preliminary objection, and the preliminary objection was struck out on May 17, 2023, for want of diligent prosecution.

 

They said they filed pre-action notices, which were served on the company, bitterly complaining about the hazardous effects of its activities on their community and the need to remedy the situation, but to no avail.

 

According to them, the plaintiffs then complained to NESREA in a letter dated 26 January 2017 about the hazardous effects of the quarrying activities.

 

They said that NESREA gave a damning verdict about the company’s activities and suggested measures to ameliorate them, but still to no avail; hence, their community decided to approach the court.

 

In the suit, the plaintiffs called three witnesses to prove their case and tendered four documents marked as exhibits, while the defence equally called three witnesses and tendered some documents to back their argument.

 

After the parties adopted their final written addresses on April 29, Justice Omale fixed June 9 for judgement.