Court adjourns alleged pollution case against firm to June 6

A Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt, Rivers State capital, has fixed June 6, for hearing an alleged environmental pollution suit filed against Indorama Eleme Petrochemicals and Fertilizer Limited.

The suit was filed by some indigenes of the firm’s host communities in the state.

Specifically, the matter was brought against the company by one Kingsley Mba-Ngei and 69 others from the Alesa community in Eleme Local Council of Rivers State.

At the resumed hearing of the case marked FHC/PH/CS/23/2024 before Justice Stephen Dalyop Pam, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Mohammed Ndarani Mohammed (SAN), briefed the court on the importance of the matter and sought for urgent hearing.

However, counsel for Indorama, in their separate arguments, observed that the grounds for filing the originating suit was improper.

One of them, Godwin Omoaka, informed the court of a preliminary objection challenging the suit, and requested that the court gives the parties a new date to argue the matter.

After hearing the arguments of the parties in the suit, Justice Pam ruled that the substantive matter cannot be heard immediately, on the ground that it was brought to the court through originating summons and not writ of summons.

He, however, adjourned to June 6, to enable parties file their pleadings.

In the suit, the plaintiffs alleged that Indorama polluted their water bodies in the course of producing its products (fertilizer) and therefore all the water bodies where they carry out their businesses, drink and derive their livelihood were polluted.

Speaking outside the courtroom, counsel for Indorama, Omoaka explained that “the judge wanted to direct parties to file pleadings because the matter was commenced by originating summons.

“But counsel for the Plaintiff wanted the court to hear the matter on originating summons, but the judge took the view that the matter was a contested matter, so parties should file pleadings so the matter can proceed to trial. So, we agreed to that.

“The bottom line is that the court is not going to hear the case based on originating summons as presently constituted.”

Meanwhile, counsel for the plaintiffs, Mohammed declined to comment on the matter.