Jurisdictional issues in the Ogoni case

Keywords: Ogoni case, jurisdiction, extraterritorial jurisdiction, universal jurisdiction, ‘piercing the corporate veil’, ‘forum shopping’, forum non conveniens, forum necessitatis

Abstract

The article analyzes the Ogoni case, which combines several high-profile lawsuits in the courts of Nigeria, the United States, the
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the African Commission on Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of the Economic Community
of West Africa. Practical issues related to the jurisdiction of states are covered, namely, extraterritorial jurisdiction, universal jurisdiction
in civil matters, ‘piercing the corporate veil’, ‘forum shopping’, doctrines ‘forum non conveniens’, ‘forum necessitatis’, etc. The Ogoni
case demonstrated the diversity and complexity of jurisdictional issues at the national and international levels. Although in terms of
jurisdiction the courts of Nigeria were the most appropriate forum to bring an action in this case, due to the inefficiency of the Nigerian
judicial system, the plaintiffs appealed to other jurisdictions. The Wiwa and Kiobel cases before the US courts can be considered as
examples of an attempt, albeit unsuccessful, to implement the extraterritorial application of US national law and to apply the principle
of universal jurisdiction in civil tort cases. US courts have denied the plaintiffs’ claims under the ‘forum non conveniens’ doctrine and
refused to apply extraterritorially the American tort law to corporations located and registered in other states. In the Akpan case, the
District Court of the Netherlands refused to ‘pierce the corporate veil’, but the Court of Appeal ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear tha
case concerning both Shell and the Nigerian subsidiary. In the Kiobel case, which is also before the courts of the Netherlands, an alternative
basis for jurisdiction was used – ‘forum necessitatis’. In the Okpabi case, the British courts have so far refused to recognize their
jurisdiction. It should be noted that the Wiwa and Kiobel cases concern the liability of Shell and SPDC for human rights violations,
while the Akpan and Okpabi cases concern the civil liability for environmental damage. The above proceedings in national and international
courts are a clear example of ‘forum shopping’. The case was considered by the African Commission on Human Rights, which
recognized its jurisdiction despite the absence of domestic remedies exhaustion, and by the West African Economic Community Court,
which recognized its jurisdiction to hear the case under the African Charter as well as international covenants on human rights.

References

1. Konne, B.R. (2013-2014). Inadequate Monitoring and Enforcement in the Nigerian Oil Industry: The Case of Shell and Ogoniland. Cornell International Law Journal. 47(1), 181-204 [in English].
2. Environmental Justice Organisations. Liabilities and Trade. The Shell Case in Nigeria. EJOLT Factsheet, 2 August 2015. http://www.ejolt.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FS-41.pdf [in English].
3. Manby, B. Shell in Nigeria: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Ogoni Crisis. A case study published by the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs. https://carec.com.pe/biblioteca/biblio/5/20/C.%20Shell%20in%20Nigeria%20(CSR)%20and%20the%20Ogoni%20Crisis%20(Bronwen%20Manby).pdf [in English].
4. Amnesty International (2020). On Trial: Shell in Nigeria. Legal Actions against the Oil Multinational https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/AFR4416982020ENGLISH.PDF [in English].
5. Willis, E.M. (2013). Shell in Ogoniland and Chevron/Texaco in the Oriente: A comparative analysis of human rights and corporate social responsibility. https://globalstudies.unc.edu/files/2013/11/Willis-Elizabeth-Shell-Ogoniland.pdf [in English].
6. Weswasi, E.A. (2019). Spending blood for oil in Nigeria: A frame analysis of Shell’s neutralisation of acts that led to corporate-initiated state crime. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Kriminalvidenskab. 3, 280-296 [in English].
7. The Cener for Justice and Accountability. Kiobel v. Shell Overview. https://cja.org/what-we-do/litigation/amicus-briefs/kiobel-v-shell/ [in English].
8. Ryngaert, C. (2012). Tort Litigation in Respect of Overseas Violations of Environmental Law Committed by Corporations: Lessons from the Akpan v Shell Litigation in the Netherlands. McGill International Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy. 8, 245-260 [in English].
9. De Schutter, O. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction as a tool for improving the Human Rights Accountability of Transnational Corporations. https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/df31ea6e492084e26ac4c08affcf51389695fead.pdf [in English].
10. District Court of the Hague (2013). Akpan and others v. Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, Ltd. http://humanrightsinbusiness.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/final-judgment-shell-oil-spill-ikot-ada-udo-2.pdf [in English].
11. Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32001R0044 [in English].
12. Van Dam, C. Preliminary judgments Dutch Court of Appeal in the Shell Nigeria case. https://www.rsm.nl/fileadmin/Images_NEW/Sites/Chair_IBHR/Publications/Van_Dam_-_Preliminary_judgments_Dutch_Shell_case.pdf [in English].
13. Mandap, Ch. S. (2019). Jurisdiction of Parent Companies’ Home State Courts over Foreign Subsidiaries Abroad: A Comparative Approach Between the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Amsterdam Law Forum. 11(2), 40-72 [in English].
14. Van Calster, G. (2019). Kiobel v. Shell in The Netherlands. Court confirms jurisdiction anchored unto mother holding and qualifies the suit as one in human rights: not tort. Also orders limited use of documents obtained in US discovery and limited continuation of the trial. https://gavclaw.com/2019/05/17/kiobel-v-shell-in-the-netherlands-court-confirms-jurisdiction-anchored-unto-mother-holding-and-qualifies-the-suit-as-one-in-human-rights-not-tort-also-orders-limited-use-of-documents-obtained-in-us/ [in English].
15. England and Wales Court of Appeal (2018). His Royal Highness Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi and Others v. Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Plc. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/191.html [in English].
16. Kryvetska, O.V. (2019). Regulyuvannya mnozhynnyh provadzhen u sporah mizh inozemnym investorom i derzhavoyu: dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk.: 12.00.03 / Kyiv. nacz. un-tet im. T.G. Shevchenka [in Ukrainian].
17. Medvedieva, M.O. (2012). Realizaciya mizhnarodno-pravovyh norm z oxorony navkolyshnogo seredovyshcha: dys. … d-ra yuryd. nauk.: 12.00.11 / Kyiv. nacz. un-tet im. T.G. Shevchenka [in Ukrainian].
18. African Commission on Human Rights (2001). Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) and Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) / Nigeria. https://www.achpr.org/public/Document/file/English/achpr30_155_96_eng.pdf [in English].
19. Coomans, F. The Ogoni case before the African Commission on Human and Peolpes’ Rights. http://www.righttoenvironment.org/ip/uploads/downloads/OgoniCaseProf.Coomans.pdf [in English].
20. Community Court of Justice of the ECOWAS (2012). The Socio-Еconomic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) v. Nigeria. http://www.worldcourts.com/ecowasccj/eng/decisions/2012.12.14_SERAP_v_Nigeria.pdf [in English].
Klyajn, N. (2016). Zminyuyetsya vse. Kapitalizm proty klimatu / Per. z angl. D. Kozheduba [in Ukrainian].
Published
2020-11-10
How to Cite
Medvedieva, M. (2020). Jurisdictional issues in the Ogoni case. Law Review of Kyiv University of Law, 1(3), 332-337. https://doi.org/10.36695/2219-5521.3.2020.60
Section
The legal system of Ukraine and international law, comparative legal studies