Seismograph Service Ltd v. Benedict E. Onokpasa (1972)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. S. SOWEMIMO, J.S.C.

In Suit S/29/68 the plaintiff/respondent sued the defendant/appellant at the High Court of Sapele in the Mid-Western State for special and general damages to the Trinity College buildings at Okwidiemo of which the respondent was the proprietor. The endorsement to the writ of summons reads:-

CLAIM

The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for the sum of 40,000.00pds (forty thousand pounds) being special and general damages for damage caused by the defendant to the plaintiff’s eight college buildings, namely, one block of 12 class rooms, one block of 4 class rooms, one dormitory block, one assembly/dining hall and kitchen block, the Principal’s house, the Principal’s kitchen, latrine building and one piggery house at Okwidiemo within the Sapele Judicial Division when between May and June 1968, the defendant carried out seismic operations near the plaintiff’s aforementioned college buildings at Okwidiemo which shook the said buildings to their very foundations and caused the said damage.

On the completion of hearing, Ekeruche 1 on 29th October, 1969 gave judgment for plaintiff in the sum of 24pds,2 14 17s 11d as special damages for trespass. The defendant has therefore appealed to this Court.

It was conceded by both parties that the learned trial judge was clearly in error to have found the claim in trespass and that the proper cause of action is one for nuisance.

The issue that was joined at the trial was whether the seismic operations carried out by the defendant company prospecting for oil caused the extensive damage to some buildings which plaintiff claimed to have erected to house a college under his proprietorship.

The plaintiff claimed that his damaged buildings comprised of “a block of 12 classrooms (two storey) uncompleted, erected at a cost of 4,000pds, one block of 4 classrooms valued at 2,500pds, one dormitory block valued at 3,500pds, one assembly/dining hall and a kitchen block valued at 2,400pds, Principal’s house valued at 1,250, outhouses valued at 230pds and a piggery house erected at a cost of 500ps.” He gave evidence also that prior to the “shooting operations” the defendant company sent one Ossai to inspect his buildings and submit a report of his inspection. He further stated that on completion of defendant’s “seismic operations” the college buildings were inspected by an official of the defendant company. According to the plaintiff this official made a report of his inspection and promised that the defendant company would make good all the damages to the college buildings. He contended that it was as a result of some vibrations from defendant’s “seismic operations” that the college buildings were damaged.

The defendant company on the other hand in its amended statement of defence admitted sending assai to the premises of the college but not for inspection; he was to check on the distance from the college premises to any point that would be safe enough for the “shooting operations” that were to be carried out by the defendant. The defendant required the information as it was in a position to know what distance is safe for any “shooting operations” using a particular type of explosive charge. After ascertaining this the defendant company then commenced its shooting operations. It is the case of the defendant that whatever damages the college buildings suffered were not in any way connected with the shooting operations carried out by its workmen.

The relevant portions of the pleadings on which issues were joined are, so far as the statement of claim is concerned, as follows:-

8. A few days after Paul assai’s pre-shooting inspection workers of the defendant company came into the college compound, walked into the adjoining bush, and started the shooting operations around the school premises.
9. The four nearest shot-points as shown on the markings on posts on the points marked by the defendant are ‘S.P. 228’ which is about 266 yards from the Principal’s house, outhouses and the fourclassroom blocks. Another, ‘S.P.’ (Post recently removed by the defendant company) is about 291 yards from the Assembly/dining hall block, the piggery block and the hostel block. The uncompleted two storeyed classroom block is equidistant from the two shot-points above referred to.
10. The two other shot-points are S.P. 120 and S.P. 328 which are about 300 yards and 400 yards respectively from the compound but are on the other side of the premises and almost opposite the first two shot-points.
11. Shooting exercise was carried on by the defendant’s workers on several points including the four nearest shot-points referred to above at various times during the months of May and June 1968. At each point several seismic shots were fired. They averaged five a day and lasted for about three weeks.
12. At each blast or shooting there were vibrations of the buildings and the ground around. During this period classes were disturbed by the boomings and vibrations which went to the very foundations of the buildings.
13. On one occasion the tremor caused by these heavy shootings were such that the beams carrying the roof of class V (that is the uncompleted 12 classroom block) were fractured in several places and a hugh piece of the concrete broke away and fell down narrowly missing a student’s head.
14. So serious is the damage done to class V building (that is the uncompleted 12 classroom block) that the building has been declared dangerous and out of bounds to students. Classes are since being held in the Library and under tree shades. The building operation was forced to be stopped and the promised building aid from the Ministry of Education could not be pursued.
15. The nature of damage done to all these buildings described in paragraph 2 by the defendant’s aforesaid operations are vertical and horizontal cracks. These cracks occur to the walls without following lines of the mortar joints. The cracks cut across the blocks either horizontally or vertically and are at strategic points in the buildings. Where the cracks are neither vertical nor horizontal, they are scattered in all directions from a point on the wall. These are shattering cracks.
16. The plaintiff will contend at the trial:

(i) That these cracks are dangerous in nature and different from those described in the dormitory and the four classroom blocks in paragraph 5 above.

(ii) That these cracks are symptoms of shock which affected the buildings right from the ground.

(iii) That the cracks to the walls indicate that the foundation concrete for the different buildings have been fractured by the shock and vibrations which emanated from the shooting operations at the various points referred to above.

(iv) That as a result the buildings are now human traps in their present condition and are no longer fit for human habitation.