Cava activities: the Court rejects the cause for negligence N500m against the construction company

A high state court by Benue seated in Otukpo rejected a cause in search of damage from 500 million naira against Rockbridge Construction Limited for his alleged dangerous quarry activities in a community in Benue’s state.

In a judgment, the judge GA Homal believed that the quality and quantum of the evidence provided by the complaints were not sufficient, convincing and strong enough to support the reliefs supported.

Three crowded indigenous people of the Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu community of the Local Government Council of Ohimini in Benue’s state had mentioned Rockbridge Construction Ltd and Capo Bernard Ejembo for himself and on behalf of the clan/agreement of Alaglanu in Ohimini Local Government as 1st and 2nd accused.

The complaints; Adoga Michael, Aiko Aboje and Frank Adigwu, through their advice, Pa Ongala Esq. He had filed the cause for themselves and on behalf of the community of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu of the state.

They said they were farmers and indigenous people of Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu in the Oglewu district of the local government of Olas and residents in said community.

They also said the young leaders of the community and to have the mandate and authorization of the entire community to maintain the action on their behalf and against the appointed defendants.

They searched for the sum of N500 million jointly and severely against the defendants “being general damage for environmental pollution, damage to buildings/structures, general inconveniences and associated health risks caused by the activities of the 1st accused in connivance with the 2nd accused”.

In the act of convocations of 28 October 2022, they also sought an order that forced the defendants to give effect to the recommendations of environmental standards and national regulations (Nesrea) saw ref.

They sought an order that forced the company to suspend further cava activities in Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu in the Oglewu district of the local government of Ohimini of the State of Benue, pending full compliance with the recommendation of Nesrea saw his report of 26 January 2017.

But Rockbridge Construction Limited, through his main consultant, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq. Of the Fred-Younge & Evans Lp law firm, urged the court to reject the case.

The company, in its final written address, argued that the Court was missing the jurisdiction to entertain the case for reasons that the issues relating to mines, minerals and quarries are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

Furthermore, in his declaration of defense of 30 November 2022 and presented by Ekpenyong, the company denied all the accusations of the complaints.

The company argued that, with a letter dated 7 October 2022, the elderly people of the community had withdrawn their support from the complaints, stating that “the complaints do not represent their interest”.

He declared that the elderly had argued that the community would continue to enjoy good relations with the company.

He also argued that, contrary to the thesis of the sued, the cava cava activities on the site have had no negative effect and have not caused difficulty to the Awulema-Alaglanu-Oglewu village because the site is far from the village.

According to the company, the 1st defendant carried out Cava activities on the site for almost 17 years and if his quarry activities were negatively affected, the complaints would not have waited until after 17 years to complain.

He insisted on the fact that his cava activities have no dangerous effect in the area and are conducted in line with the best international practices.

In addition, the company argued that it was not aware of the letter of complaint of the community of lawsuits to the official of the federal mines, the Inspectorate Department of Miniers, Makurdi.

The construction of Rockbridge criticized the affirmation of the complaints according to which Nesrea carried out an investigation into its quarry activities and returned with a harmful verdict against it when there is a subsistence environments issued by Nesrea.

In his last written speech presented by his lawyer, Sunday Ayegba Esq., Capo Ejembo, prayed to the Court to resolve the three issues raised in the case in favor of the defendants and reject the case.

In his deposition on an oath, Ejembo, who said he was the head of the Alaglanu clan and resides in the Alaglanu-Oglewu community, hurt that the elderly of the Awulema community denied any involvement in the pre-action letter served to the company and the subsequent deposit of the case.

He said they wrote a letter dated 7 October 2022, in which the elderly declared that they did not agree with the letter of pre-action of the complaints.

He said the elderly supported in the letter that were in good condition with the company.

Ejembo said that the complaints do not have their residences within the community to suffer any form of inconveniences for his knowledge.

Furthermore, he said that the Cava and Shattering site was an area of reserved land by the Alaglanu community for Cava activities since 1960 and the site had existed as such and in use by various road construction companies and stone rupture companies.

He urged the court to hit his name from the case since no cause has been established against him.

Driving the sentence on June 30, 2025 and a real certified copy made available to journalists in Abuja, the approval judge canceled the topic of the company that it was only the High Federal Court to have the jurisdiction to decide the matter.

“I carefully exploited the reliefs requested by the complaints and, according to my humble vision, their statement is founded on Tort.

“The question is now: does the High Federal Court have jurisdiction in issues based on Trt?

“There is no place in the Constitution or in any other issue that the High Federal Court is dressed in the jurisdiction required to determine the cases based on tortuous crimes despite the parties involved.

“In my opinion, this is one of the limitations in the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.”

“According to the provision of section 271, paragraph 1, the high state Court has the jurisdiction to determine the matter in relation to civil rights and citizens’ obligations.

“This leg of objection by the defender fails, and is overcome,” said the judge.

The approval judge also resolved the topic according to which the case of the complaints was involved in the provision of section 18 of the Benue State Limition Law Cap 98, laws of the State of Benue, 2004, against the defendants.

The judge also served with the presentation of Ekpenyong according to which the company was not sued in his registered name, having presented his defense in the same name.

“This is because it is believed that he has given up on his right and is therefore tried by contending otherwise,” he said.

The approval judge, however, hit the name of the head Bernard Ejembo, the second accused, from the cause.

The judge agreed with the argument of his lawyer according to which there was no cause of action against the ejemb, despite having been sued in representative.

“I am satisfied that the second defendant should not have been combined with the request of the complaints,” he said

The judge declared that the complaints did not offer credible tests to demonstrate the D, which was the Nesrea report they presented, which detailed some phases that the agency ordered the company to conform within 14 days

The judge, however, agreed with the company that he had respected the environmental standards that follow his exhibition D1 Offer, which was the Environmental Audit certificate issued on April 5, 2022 by Nesrea

“Nesrea is the body authorized by the law to publish exposures D1. In my humble point of view, attachment D1 is a reliable and strong proof of compliance with environmental standards by the defendant (company).

“The D1 exhibition has not been accused in front of me, and is a reliable proof in favor of the defendant who is in full compliance with the environmental standard prescribed by the law.

“In my opinion, rescue B and C in the affirmation of the complaints can no longer be granted in view of Annex D1.”

The judge also discounted the topics of the complaints on the basis of the fact that no documentary proof, including a medical relationship, was offered before the court to demonstrate that he had undergone losses compared to the company’s quarry activities.

“If the lawsuit have a medical relationship to demonstrate that they have suffered health problems because of the company’s activities, why retain it from the court?

“I believe that the complaints deliberately retained evidence that if you hold would have been harmful to their case,” he said, citing a previous decision of the Supreme Court.

According to the judge, the law is established that it is a duty to consider the evidence produced before it and never proceed to give itself a speculation on what could have happened.

“A judge cannot replace his assumption for the testimony of the witnesses provided on the oath before him.

“Cases must be determined on the basis of the law and the facts since feelings have not placed in the judicial resolution.”

The judge also agreed with the topic of Ekpenyong according to which the evidence of an expert was necessary to establish that they were the cava activities of the defendant who caused injuries to the plaintiffs, their buildings and the farms, as well as the other members of the community.

His words: “The law is resolved that in a case based on the crime of annoyance, it is necessary that the actor establishes particular, direct and substantial damage to be successful.

“The law is equally resolved that in a request anchored to the crime of negligence, the lawsuits must provide tests in proof of any material question, regardless of whether the defendant offers or not tests in refutation and the inability to do so the affirmation of the complaints vizes.”

“The law is that in an action of this nature, the damage must be demonstrated.

“Since the measure of damage in an action for negligence is based on the principle of restititis in the intergrum, there must be sufficient credible evidence to justify the exercise of the discretion of the Court in favor of the complaints.

“From everything I said, it is my modest vision that the quality and quantum of the tests provided by the complaints is not sufficient, convincing and strong enough to support the rescue supported.

“The complaints have not shown their case with credible tests as required by law.

“The request for the complaints fails, and is consequently rejected.”