CHIEF JOEL SIMEON OBU & ORS V. THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEV. CO. (2013)

Background

This case arose from a dispute involving the appellants, all plaintiffs in the Federal High Court, who accused the 1st respondent, The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd. (hereinafter 'Shell'), of discrimination in contract awarding for services related to a trunk line passing through their community. The appellants argued that Shell had policies in place that favored local landlords for such contracts, yet the recent contract had been awarded to a non-local (Chief Eyiba), despite their claims of entitlement based on these policies.

Issues

The case primarily revolved around two critical issues:

1. Whether the appellants had disclosed a reasonable cause of action, particularly regarding allegations of discrimination, and whether their claims were justiciable.
2. Whether the dismissal order issued by the lower court was appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that:

1. A cause of action constitutes a factual scenario that permits one person to seek a remedy from another. To establish a cause for action in this case, the appellants needed to show that they had substantive grounds to complain of discrimination.
2. The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction, asserting that absence of jurisdiction renders any decision a nullity.
3. For dismissals related to non-disclosure of reasonable cause of action, the correct course of action is to strike out the case rather than dismiss it outright.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal found:

1. The claims brought forth by the appellants did not adequately reflect a reasonable cause of action as they largely relied on the 1st respondent’s internal policy guidelines, which do not constitute enforceable rights.
2. The term 'discrimination' as alleged by the appellants could not stand since no legal rights emanated from the policies of the 1st respondent.
3. Furthermore, the supposed consideration relied upon by the appellants was inherently illegal and thus incapable of supporting a valid claim under the law, as expressed in the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed due to lack of merit. The Court of Appeal determined that the appellants did not establish a valid cause of action and that their claims were not justiciable based on the evidence presented. The ruling of the lower court to dismiss the case was upheld.

Significance

This case exemplifies the critical legal principles surrounding the definitions of cause of action and justiciability in Nigerian law. It reaffirmed the doctrine that rights must stem from reciprocal obligations, and it underscored the scrutiny courts must apply to issues of discrimination and contract awards, particularly when intertwined with company policies that may not confer actual legal rights.