A Benue State High Court sitting in Otukpo has dismissed a suit seeking a 500 million naira damages against Rockbridge Construction Limited over its alleged hazardous quarrying activities in a community in Benue State.

Justice G.A. Omale, in a judgment, held that the quality and quantum of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs was not sufficient, convincing and strong enough to sustain the reliefs claimed.

Three aggrieved indigenes of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community of Ohimini Local Government Council in Benue State had sued Rockbridge Construction Ltd and Chief Bernard Ejembi for himself and on behalf of Alaglanu Clan/Settlement in Ohimini local government as 1st and 2nd defendants.

The plaintiffs; Adoga Michael, Aiko Aboje and Frank Adigwu, through their Counsel, P.A Omengala Esq. had filed the suit for themselves and on behalf of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Community of the State.

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

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

They sought the sum of 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 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 the 26th January, 2017.

They sought an order compelling the company to suspend further quarrying activities in Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu in Oglewu District of Ohimini local government of Benue State, pending full compliance with the recommendation of NESREA vide its report of 26th January, 2017.

But Rockbridge Construction Limited, through its lead counsel, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. of the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP, urged the court to dismiss the suit.

The company, in its final written address, argued that the court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the grounds that issues relating to mines, minerals and quarrying are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

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

The company argued that by a letter dated October 7, 2022, the elders of the community had withdrawn their support from the plaintiffs, stating that “the plaintiffs do not represent their interest.”

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

It further argued that contrary to the contention of the plaintiffs, the company’s quarrying activities at the site had no negative effect and has not caused any hardship to the Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu Village because the site is far from the village.

According to the company, the 1st defendant has been carrying out quarrying activities at the site for close to 17 years and if its quarrying activities have been adversely affected the plaintiffs, they would not have waited till after 17 years to complain.

It insisted that its quarrying activities have no hazardous effect in the area and is conducted in line with international best practices.

Besides, the company argued that it was 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 with a damning verdict against it when there is a subsisting Environmental Audit Certificate issued by NESREA to it.

Chief Ejembi, in his final written address filed by his lawyer, Sunday Ayegba Esq., 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 is the Alaglanu clan head and 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 7th October, 2022, wherein the elders stated that they were not in agreement with the plaintiffs’ letter of pre-action.

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

Ejembi said the plaintiffs do not have their residences within the community to suffer any form of inconveniences to his knowledge.

Besides, he said that the quarrying and crushing site was a reserved area of land by Alaglanu Community for quarrying activities since the year 1960 and the site had existed as such and in use by several road construction companies and stone breaking companies.

He urged the court to strike out his name from the suit since no cause of action was established against him.

Delivering the Judgment on June 30, 2025, and a certified true copy of it made available to newsmen on Monday in Abuja, Justice Omale overruled the company’s argument that it was only the Federal High Court that had the jurisdiction to decide the matter.

“I have carefully perused the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs and in my humble view, their claim is founded on Tort.

“The question now is, does the Federal High Court, have jurisdiction in matters founded on Tort?

“There is nowhere in the constitution or any other enactment the Federal High Court is clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to determine cases founded on tortious offences notwithstanding the parties involved.

“In my view, this is one of the limitations in the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court”

“By the provision of Section 271(1), the State High Court has the jurisdiction to determine matter as it relates to civil rights and obligations of citizens.

“This leg of the objection by the defence counsel fails and it is hereby overruled,” the judge said.

Justice Omale also resolved the argument that the plaintiffs’ case was caught up by the provision of Section 18 of the Benue State Limitation Law Cap 98, Laws of Benue State, 2004, against the defendants.

The judge also discountenanced with Ekpenyong’s submission that the company was not sued in its registered named, having filed his defence in the same name.

“This is because he is deemed to have waived his right and is therefore estopped from contending the contrary,” he said.

Justice Omale, however, struck out the name of Chief Bernard Ejembi, the 2nd defendants, from the suit.

The judge agreed with his counsel’s argument that there was no cause of action established against Ejembi notwithstanding that he was sued in a representative capacity.

“I am satisfied that the 2nd defendant ought not to have been joined in the plaintiffs’ claim,” he said

The judge held that the plaintiffs failed to offer credible evidence to demonstrate Exhibit D, which was the NESREA Report they presented which itemised certain steps the agency directed the company to comply with within 14 days.

The judge, however, agreed with the company that it had complied with the environmental standards going by its Exhibit D1 tendered which was the Environmental Audit Certificate issued on April 5, 2022 by NESREA.

“NESREA is the body authorised by law to issue Exhibit D1. In my humble view, Exhibit D1 is a reliable and strong evidence of compliance with Environmental Standards by the defendant (Company).

“Exhibit D1 has not been impeached before me and it is a reliable evidence in favour of the defendant that it is in full compliance with the Environmental Standard prescribed by law.

“In my view, Reliefs B and C in the plaintiffs’ claim can no longer be granted in view of Exhibit D1.”

The judge also discountenanced the arguments of the plaintiffs on the grounds that no documentary evidence, including a medical report, was tendered before the court to prove that they had suffered losses with respect to the quarrying activities of the company.

“If plaintiffs have medical report to show that they suffered health issues as a result of the activities of the company, why withholding it from the court?

“I hold that the plaintiffs deliberately withheld evidence which if tendered would have been detrimental to their case,” he said, citing a previous Supreme Court decision.

According to the judge, the law is settled that it is the duty of court to consider the evidence produced before it and never to proceed to indulge in speculation as to what might have happened.

“A judge cannot substitute his own supposition for the testimony of witnesses given on oath before him.

“Cases must be determined based on law and facts since sentiments have no place in judicial deliberation.”

The judge also agreed with Ekpenyong’s argument that the evidence of an expert was necessary to establish that it was the quarrying activities of the defendant that caused injury to the plaintiffs, their buildings and farms as well as the other members of the community.

His words: “The law is settled that in a case predicated on the tort of nuisance, it is necessary for the plaintiff to establish particular, direct and substantial damage in order to succeed.

“The law is equally settled that in a claim anchored on the tort of negligence, the plaintiffs must adduce evidence in proof of every material issues, whether or not the defendant offers any evidence in rebuttal and the failure to do so vitiates the plaintiffs’ claim.”

“The law is that in an action of this nature, damages must be proved.

“Since the measure of damages in an action for negligence Is founded on the principle of restititio in intergrum, there must be sufficient credible evidence to justify the exercise of the discretion of the court in favour of the plaintiffs.

“From all that I have said, it is my humble view that the quality and quantum of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs is not sufficient, convincing and strong enough to sustain the reliefs claimed.

“The plaintiffs have failed to prove their case with credible evidence as required by law.

“The claim of the plaintiffs fails and it is accordingly dismissed.”