Superior Court of Judicature, High Court of Justice at Tema
Center for Public Interest Law (CEPIL); Anor
Tema Oil Refinery
CEPIL was a non-governmental organization primarily engaged in the promotion of human rights and public interest litigation. The other plaintiff in this case, Anor, was an indigene of Tema and a resident of Tema Manhean in the Tema Municipality. The defendant, Tema Oil Refinery (Tema), was a limited liability company incorporated in Ghana with the government as its sole shareholder. Tema’s business was refining crude oil into petroleum products for national consumption. The plaintiffs submitted a complaint alleging that Tema exposed the Chemu II Lagoon to hydrocarbon contamination. Specifically, they alleged that Tema had been negligent in its failure to use state-of-the-art equipment and in its employees’ inefficient handling of equipment. The lagoon in question was an important part of the region’s ecology, and hydrocarbon contamination would be detrimental to its animal and plant life. Additionally, the plaintiffs expressed concern that the pollution of the lagoon was hazardous to the health of the citizens of Ghana, particularly those who had settled along the banks of the lagoon. Fishermen relying on the lagoon for their livelihood were also at increased risk of harm. The plaintiffs also alleged a violation of their right to a healthy environment guaranteed under Ghana’s Constitution (through, the plaintiffs argued, the right to life) and international law.
In terms of remedies, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendant had been negligent and had violated the R2HE of the region’s inhabitants, particularly those living along the banks of the affected lagoon. They also sought punitive damages, an order enjoining the defendant to clean up the lagoon under the supervision of the Environmental Protection Agency and, finally, an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from further pollution through oil spillage or other means.
Following the defendant’s request for dismissal – which argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs lacked standing and a cause of action – the Court held that the plaintiffs’ action could proceed. The fact that the suit potentially stood to benefit all of the region’s inhabitants did not, the Court held, destroy the grounds for self-representative standing. Similarly, the plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts indicating the possibility of a cause for action that they were permitted to proceed to the trial and evidence stage. Lastly, the Court accepted the plaintiffs’ argument that the right to life, when interpreted liberally, included the right to a healthy environment (R2HE).
Tema later moved to amend portions of its defense, but was denied by the Court. Tema then filed an interlocutory appeal challenging that decision, and the trial was delayed indefinitely.