The Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) has rejected the Federal High Court’s dismissal of a landmark environmental suit filed by the monarch of Ekpetiama Kingdom, describing the ruling as a setback for environmental justice and urging that the matter be pursued to Nigeria’s highest court.

The suit, FHC/YNG/CS/8/2025, filed by HRM King Bubaraye Dakolo against Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (SPDC) and six other defendants, including the Attorney General of the Federation and the Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC), was dismissed on July 17, 2026, by Justice Ayo Emmanuel of the Federal High Court in Yenagoa.

The case sought to hold Shell accountable for decades of alleged oil spills, gas flaring and environmental degradation across the Gbarain oil fields before the company’s divestment of its onshore assets to Renaissance African Energy Limited.

In a statement reacting to the judgment, HOMEF argued that the court did not determine the substance of the environmental claims but dismissed the matter on procedural grounds.

According to the organisation, the court relied on four principal reasons: failure to comply with statutory conditions under the Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021 and the Upstream Petroleum Remediation Funds Regulations 2022; the application of limitation laws under the Public Officers Protection Act and the Bayelsa State Limitation Law; the finding that the fundamental rights claims were secondary to tort-related claims; and the upholding of the defendants’ preliminary objections.

HOMEF maintained that the environmental damage complained of by the Ekpetiama people is ongoing and should not be treated as historical events barred by limitation laws.

The organisation argued that where ageing oil infrastructure remains in operation, gas flaring continues and polluted lands and waterways have not been remediated, the alleged harm remains continuous.

It warned that treating decades of environmental degradation as expired causes of action risks shielding extractive companies from accountability while leaving affected communities without justice.

HOMEF Executive Director, Nnimmo Bassey, expressed concern that the judgment focused entirely on procedural issues rather than the environmental impact alleged by the plaintiffs.

“Every one of these grounds is procedural; not a single finding goes to the merits of the environmental harm the Ekpetiama people have suffered for over six decades,” Bassey said.

He further argued that the Federal Government, through the Minister of Petroleum Resources, the NUPRC and the Attorney General of the Federation, was rightly joined in the suit because of their role in approving Shell’s divestment, which the plaintiffs contend failed to satisfy the environmental obligations prescribed under the Petroleum Industry Act.

HOMEF’s Legal Officer, Onome Etisioro, said the dismissal leaves unresolved critical legal questions surrounding environmental accountability in Nigeria.

According to Etisioro, Nigerian courts are yet to establish clear jurisprudence on what constitutes a continuing environmental wrong or ecocide, and whether limitation statutes designed for conventional civil disputes should apply to environmental damage that accumulates over decades.

She argued that while the Ekpetiama case was intended to compel judicial clarification of those issues, its dismissal on technical grounds prevented the court from addressing the substantive questions raised by the litigation.

HOMEF described the ruling as part of a broader trend in Nigerian environmental litigation, where cases involving significant public interest and long-standing ecological damage are often terminated on procedural grounds before courts consider the underlying claims.

The organisation commended lead counsel Chuks Uguru and the Ekpetiama legal team for indicating their intention to challenge the judgment on appeal.

It called on environmental advocates, legal practitioners and human rights organisations across the Niger Delta and beyond to support the appellate process, insisting that higher courts should have the opportunity to determine whether procedural barriers are advancing or hindering environmental justice.

The case is expected to remain closely watched as campaigners seek judicial clarity on corporate environmental responsibility and the legal treatment of long-term ecological damage in Nigeria’s oil-producing communities.