In a landmark ruling that clarifies the legal distinction between a “continuing injury” and the “continuing effect” of an injury, the Federal High Court in Uyo has dismissed a representative suit seeking N54 billion against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (now SEPNU).

The case, which involved representatives from three communities – Barracks, Nditia and Okposo 2 stemmed from an alleged oil spill in 2014.
  
The claimants sought to bypass the statute of limitations by characterising the environmental damage as a continuing injury, a move that was ultimately rejected by the court in a landmark decision.
  
At the heart of the ruling was a complex legal argument advanced by Mobil’s counsel, Ms Abasiemediong Etuk, a Senior Associate at the firm of Kenna Partners, who drew a sharp legal line between two often-conflated concepts: continuing injury versus the continuing effect of a legal injury.
  
She argued that a continuing injury requires a repeat or recurrence of the wrongful act itself, a scenario absent in this case, where the alleged spill was a single event in 2014.
  
Conversely, she contended that the lingering aftermath or permanent damage from that single past event, no matter how severe, merely constitutes the “continuing effect” of a legal injury, which does not reset the statute of limitations.
  
“While the effects of the spill might persist, the cause of action remains fixed to the date the spill occurred,” Etuk argued, noting that because the alleged wrongful act was completed in 2014, the exception of continuing injury did not apply.
  
The court agreed with this argument. In its ruling, the court rejected the claimants’ attempt to revive the stale claim.
  
The judge noted that the alleged oil spill was not a continuous act but rather a completed act with residual effects.
  
Consequently, the limitation period was held to run from the date of the alleged wrongful act in 2014, rendering the 2026 suit statute barred.