Law News
Court rules in suit against Eko Atlantic City project

A Federal High Court in Lagos will on March 14, 2016, rule on the preliminary objection to a suit seeking to stop the Eko Atlantic City project.

The plaintiff in the suit, Mondinvest Limited, is seeking N2bn as general damages from the three contractors handling the project, for alleged destruction of its property due to the defendants’ ocean dredging activities.

The plaintiff, through its lawyer, Adedolapo Akinrele (SAN), had sought an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from further dredging, sand-filling or reclaiming the Kuramo portion of the Atlantic Ocean pending the determination of the suit.

Among others, the plaintiff is praying the court to determine “whether the necessary permits and operational scopes set out for the Eko Atlantic Project by Federal Ministry of Environment and related bodies had been obtained or supported the project.”

But the contractors – M.V. Breughel; Master of the M.V. Breughel; and Dredging Environmental and Marine Engineering NV – have urged the court to strike out the plaintiff’s suit, claiming it lacked the locus standi to file the suit.

The defendants, in a preliminary objection, through their lawyer, Ken Okwujiako, maintained that the Kuramo area belonged to the Federal Government, adding that they had provided a bank guarantee of N3.7bn to take care of any form of damages that might result from their ocean dredging activities.

Arguing the preliminary objection before Justice Jude Dagat on Wednesday, Okwujiako said, “Our position is that the plaintiff, not being owners of the Kuramo coastline, has no basis for demanding damages.

“The Kuramo area belongs to the Federal Government. It is our view that the plaintiff has not stated any right it has over the Kuramo area whatsoever.”

But the plaintiff’s counsel, Akinrele, maintained that his client had valid claims.

“It is clear that the plaintiff has suffered damages and is still suffering damages as a result of the dredging,” Akinrele said.

He urged the court to preserve the res, saying his client was only concerned about a narrow, disputed and protected part of the water.

“The defendants have no lawful authority to dredge that portion. Even a guarantee does not justify continued damage of the property,” he added.

After hearing both parties, Justice Dagat adjourned till March 14, 2016, for ruling.

Click here to read from source.