The High Court of Justice of Kaduna State has dismissed a suit filed against a company, Datum Construction Nigeria Ltd, seeking to stop its quarrying activities at a quarry site in Kujama, Kaduna State over allegations of farmland degradation.
Justice Edward Andow, in a judgement, held that the suit filed by an alleged farmland owner, Shekwogaza Joseph Audu, was unmeritorious.
Justice Andow said he found that while Audu may have genuine concerns regarding the damage to his land, he had completely failed to present the quality of evidence required by law to sustain his claims.
Although the judgement was delivered on June 8, 2026, its certified true copy was made available to newsmen on Thursday in Abuja.
The plaintiff had, in the suit marked: KDH//KAD/409/2021, sued Datum Construction Nigeria Ltd as sole defendant.
In the writ of summons filed on March 24, 2021, by his lawyer, S.I. Abdulaziz Esq., the plaintiff sought six reliefs.
Audu sought a declaration that the company’s continuous rock blasting and other quarry activities had grossly undermined and affected the value of his land.
He sought a declaration that the environmental impact of the defendant’s activities had also damaged soil water quality for farming and function through the earth thereby making farm unproductive and crop yielding in his land untenable and further devaluing the land.
The plaintiff, therefore, sought an order that the firm shall remove any object and cease any activity that affects his right to enjoy peaceable possession, occupation and use of his land.
Audu also prayed the court for an order awarding the sum of 5 million naira against the company as damages for causing the degradation and for undermining the land quality which had led to loss in food quality and production due to its activities.
The plaintiff, who sought a 21 per cent interest per annum on the judgment until final liquidation, also sought a cost of the action as shall be assessed by the court.
In his witness statement on oath which he adopted at trial, Audu said he was the owner, under customary law, of a piece of farmiand located at Magashanu Road, Tudun Wada, Kujama, Kaduna State.
He said his family had occupied and continually cultivated on the farmland crops such as rice, corn, millet, beans, and sorghum since 1991.
He alleged that Datum Construction Ltd operates a granite quarryying directly to the north of and abutting his land.
He alleged that since the company commenced operations, the farm’s harvest yields had suffered devastating declines.
But the company, in its amended statement of defence, filed by its lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. of the law firm of Fred-Young & Evans LP, vehemently denied the allegations.
The defendant “asserts its standing as a highly responsible, law abiding corporate citizen.”
Although the firm did not explicitly admit or deny the plaintiff’s title, putting him to the strictest proof, it stated that the Federal Ministry of Mines and Steel Development granted it Quarry Lease No. 1793QLS on August 15, 2007, following rigorous regulatory inspections, which lease remains valid through successive renewals until 2027.
It argued that it carries out its operations using global best practices with reasonable care and skill.
It contended that dust emission is actively suppressed by spraying the extraction areas with water before rock crushing.
It emphasised that rock blasting is not an everyday event but a highly regulated, periodical exercise occurring only once every one or two months in the presence of designated State inspectors.
The firm also produced Environmental Audit Certificates issued by the National Enforcement Agency (NESREA) to it to establish due compliance in its quarrying activities.
Ekpenyong argued that when Audu raised a complaint about stray rocks in 2013, the company deployed personnel and a bulldozer to inspect and clear the area, but its team was blocked and denied entry to the land.
He submitted that no other resident or entity in Kujama had lodged complaints against the firm’s operations. It describes the current litigation as an abusive attempt by the plaintiff to use the apparatus of the court to force the defendant into buying his land.
Ekpenyong prayed the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit.
During cross-examination of the plaintiff’s sole witness, he confirmed that he did not produce any documentation or proof of either statutory or customary ownership of the farmland.
He admitted that he did not know the size and borders of the farmland and did not produce before the court, any scientific expert report explaining how the quarrying activities of the company affected his farmland and farm produce.
During cross-examination of the defendant’s sole witness, the plaintiff’s counsel attempted to discredit “Exhibit F”, one of the Environment Audit Reports issued by NESREA and tendered by the defendant’s counsel, on the ground that since a Quick Response (QR) scan of the code on Exhibit F in open court did not show the agency who issued it, the document is fake.
Delivering the judgement, Justice Andow held that under Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011, when a party alleges forgery in a civil suit, that allegation carries a criminal standard of proof and must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
“An open-court scan using a mobile device, conducted without prior notice or expert technological testimony, is insufficient to prove forgery beyond a reasonable doubt or to completely strip a public document of its presumption of regularity.
“Even if this court were to completely discount Exhibit F due to the QR code anomaly, Exhibits C, D, and E remain intact, uncompromised, and cover nearly a decade of audited environmental operations.
“Apart from mere assertions, the plaintiff failed to prove its legal title or interest on the farmland or the size and borders of the land. This robs him of locus standi in this case.
“Furthermore, the plaintiff’s failure to establish his own case means he cannot succeed by simply pointing out flaws in the defence.
“In a civil suit, a plaintiff must win on the strength of his own credible evidence, not on the perceived weakness of the defendant’s case.
“The plaintiff here has provided no scientific data, no boundary descriptions, no title documentation, and no verified proof of financial loss. His claims remain completely unproven.
“Issue 3 is accordingly resolved against the plaintiff.
“This court cannot act on sentiment or substitute speculative common sense for solid, expert proof.
“This suit is thoroughly unmeritorious and is bound to fail.
“Consequently, the plaintiff’s case fails and his claims are hereby dismissed in their entirety for want of evidence.
“Each party shall bear their own costs,” the Judge ruled.
