0
The High Court of Justice of Kaduna State has dismissed a suit filed against Datum Construction Nigeria Ltd, seeking to halt its quarrying activities in Kujama, Kaduna State, over allegations of farmland degradation.
Justice Edward Andow, in his judgment, held that the suit filed by an alleged farmland owner, Shekwogaza Joseph Audu, lacked merit and failed to meet the standard of proof required by law.
The judge said that although Audu might have genuine concerns over alleged damage to his farmland, he failed to present sufficient evidence to establish his claims.
The judgment, delivered on June 8, 2026, was made available to journalists in Abuja on Friday after the certified true copy was obtained.
The plaintiff had, in suit number KDH/KAD/409/2021, sued Datum Construction Nigeria Ltd as the sole defendant.
In the writ of summons filed on March 24, 2021, through his lawyer, S.I. Abdulaziz Esq., Audu sought six reliefs from the court.
He sought a declaration that the company’s continuous rock blasting and other quarrying activities had adversely affected the value of his farmland.
He also sought a declaration that the environmental impact of the company’s operations had damaged soil and water quality, thereby affecting farming activities, reducing productivity and diminishing the value of the land.
Audu further asked the court to order the company to remove any object and stop any activity allegedly interfering with his peaceful possession, occupation and use of the land.
He also sought N5 million in damages against the company for alleged degradation of the farmland, loss of agricultural productivity and reduction in food production.
The plaintiff additionally claimed 21 per cent interest per annum on the judgment sum until final liquidation, as well as the cost of the action.
In his witness statement on oath adopted during trial, Audu claimed he was the customary owner of a farmland located at Magashanu Road, Tudun Wada, Kujama, Kaduna State.
He said his family had occupied and cultivated the farmland since 1991, planting crops including rice, maize, millet, beans and sorghum.
Audu alleged that Datum Construction operates a granite quarry directly north of and adjacent to his farmland, claiming that the company’s activities had caused a significant decline in farm yields.
However, the company, in its amended statement of defence filed through its lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong Esq., of Fred-Young & Evans LP, denied the allegations.
The company described itself as a responsible and law-abiding corporate organisation, stating that its quarry operations were conducted in compliance with regulatory requirements.
Although it did not expressly admit or deny Audu’s ownership claim, the company insisted that the plaintiff was required to prove his title to the land.
It stated that the Federal Ministry of Mines and Steel Development granted it Quarry Lease No. 1793QLS on August 15, 2007, following regulatory inspections, and that the lease remained valid through successive renewals until 2027.
The company maintained that it carried out its operations in line with global best practices and reasonable safety standards.
It told the court that dust emissions were controlled through regular water spraying before rock crushing, while blasting activities were regulated and conducted periodically, usually once every one or two months, in the presence of relevant government inspectors.
The company also tendered Environmental Audit Certificates issued by the National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency (NESREA) as evidence of compliance with environmental requirements.
Ekpenyong argued that when Audu complained in 2013 about alleged stray rocks, the company sent personnel and a bulldozer to inspect and clear the area, but its team was denied access to the farmland.
He added that no other resident or entity in Kujama had complained about the company’s operations, describing the suit as an attempt to compel the company to purchase the land through litigation.
He urged the court to dismiss the suit for lacking merit.
During cross-examination, Audu admitted that he did not provide documentation or evidence proving either statutory or customary ownership of the farmland.
He also admitted that he did not know the exact size or boundaries of the land and did not present any scientific expert report linking the company’s quarry activities to damage to his farmland or crops.
During the cross-examination of the defendant’s witness, the plaintiff’s counsel challenged Exhibit F, an Environmental Audit Report issued by NESREA, arguing that a QR code scan conducted in court did not identify the issuing agency, suggesting that the document was not authentic.
Delivering judgment, Justice Andow held that under Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011, an allegation of forgery in a civil matter must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge said an open-court QR code scan using a mobile device, without prior notice or expert technological evidence, was insufficient to establish forgery or disprove the validity of a public document.
Justice Andow held that even if Exhibit F was disregarded, other environmental audit reports tendered by the company remained valid and covered nearly a decade of audited operations.
He said the plaintiff failed to prove his legal interest in the farmland, its size, boundaries, financial loss or any scientific evidence linking the quarry activities to the alleged damage.
“An allegation cannot be established by mere assertions. The plaintiff failed to provide scientific data, boundary descriptions, title documentation and verified proof of financial loss,” the judge held.
He added that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on perceived weaknesses in the defence.
“This court cannot act on sentiment or substitute speculative common sense for solid expert proof,” Justice Andow said.
The judge consequently dismissed the suit in its entirety for lack of evidence and ordered that each party should bear its own costs.
