The paramount ruler of Ekpetiama Kingdom in Yenagoa Local Government Area of Bayelsa State, King Bubaraye Dakolo, and members of the community have appealed the dismissal of their legal action challenging the divestment of Shell Petroleum Development Company’s (SPDC) onshore oil assets.
The appeal was filed at the Court of Appeal following the July 17, 2026 decision of the Federal High Court in Yenagoa, which dismissed the suit after upholding preliminary objections raised by the defendants.
The court’s decision meant the substantive claims bordering on environmental damage, human rights concerns and regulatory obligations were not heard.
The suit, filed by Dakolo on behalf of himself and the people of Ekpetiama Kingdom, challenged Shell’s transfer of its onshore oil operations to Renaissance Africa Energy Limited.
The plaintiffs argued that oil companies should not be allowed to transfer petroleum assets while unresolved environmental liabilities remain and affected communities continue to suffer from pollution and unremediated sites.
The case also questioned whether relevant petroleum and environmental regulators properly carried out their statutory responsibilities before approving the transaction, and whether the divestment complied with Nigeria’s constitutional provisions, environmental laws and international human rights obligations.
Lead counsel to the plaintiffs, Chuck Uguru, filed the appeal in Yenagoa, asking the appellate court to determine whether the Federal High Court was right to terminate the case at the preliminary stage without allowing evidence to be presented on the core environmental and human rights issues.
Among the grounds of appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the lower court wrongly applied the grievance procedure under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) as a compulsory requirement, despite the case involving environmental pollution, asset divestment, compensation and constitutional rights rather than disputes under the Host Community Development Trust provisions of the law.
The appeal further challenged the ruling that the case was statute-barred under the Public Officers Protection Act, arguing that the alleged environmental damage, regulatory failures and unlawful actions were continuing in nature.
The appellants also argued that the trial court failed to recognise ongoing environmental harm and new issues arising from Shell’s recent divestment, wrongly questioned their legal standing, and improperly decided factual disputes at the preliminary objection stage instead of allowing the matter to proceed to full hearing.
Speaking after filing the appeal, Uguru said the plaintiffs were dissatisfied that the case was dismissed without an opportunity to present evidence.
“We are aggrieved, naturally, by the ruling of the trial court and that is why we have come here today to kick-start our constitutional right of appeal,” he said.
He added that the appeal contained eight grounds challenging the decision of the Federal High Court and that the next stage of the legal process would be before the Court of Appeal.
Resource Justice Manager of Social Action, Dr. Prince Edegbuo, said the appeal reflected the community’s determination to pursue the matter beyond technical legal arguments.
He argued that the case was fundamentally about environmental protection, human rights and the livelihoods of communities affected by decades of oil exploration.
“If people’s environment and livelihood, their lifestyle, even their culture was badly damaged for over 50 years, and Shell decides to divest without clean-up, who is going to pay for the clean-up?” Edegbuo asked.
The appeal now moves the dispute to the appellate court, where the community seeks to have the case reinstated for consideration of its substantive claims.
