Exploring Alternative Compensation Strategy for Victims of Oil Spillage

Abstract

The cases of Amos v Shell B.P Nigeria Limited and Dumez Nig. Limited v Ogboli show that most times, the victims of oil pollution go home without any remedy. Also, where negotiations are carried out between the oil Companies and the victims of oil pollution, the victims go home with peanuts to nurse their wounds. Since Litigation and out of court settlement has in no way benefited the victims of oil Pollution, this paper presents an alternative remedy that will maintain the status quo of the victims in the face of oil pollution. It is a known fact that oil pollution, whether it is due to spillage of crude oil or refined petroleum product cause damage to the environment in various ways. There is therefore, the need for liable parties to be made to pay damages to persons whose activities have been seriously affected by the pollution damages. It is informed by the fact that the degradation of the environment by oil pollution calls for compensation. Sadly enough, Nigeria has no comprehensive system of liability and compensation for oil pollution damages. The existing statutory provisions do not adequately cater for individuals who suffer the adverse effects of oil pollution Omoregbe,(1993:147).Traditionally, persons affected by oil spill (where they have the means) seek remedies under the common law of tort and it is a common knowledge that the damages awarded by the courts are inadequate, nor do they effectively deter the oil companies in a manner that would make them take more precautionary measures to prevent oil spillages. According to Mclaren,(1972:505) The torts of negligence, nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher,(1868:330) have not been of much aid to the victims of oil spill Atesegbua,(2000:82). The dictates of the giant oil companies seem to pull more force and have a better consideration in the eye of the courts. The only way available to redress these limits of the common tort law is a positive step towards judicial activism, that is the court taking a bold step to unilaterally diagnose or in connivance with experts, re-assess issues involved and break out from their conservatism.