August 12, 2025
Seri Welsh is an undergraduate intern with Corporate Accountability Lab.
After nearly a decade of legal back-and-forth, a major decision from the UK High Court has moved the case against Shell plc (Shell) and its former Nigerian subsidiary one step closer to trial. On June 20, the Court ruled that the Bille and Ogale communities in Ogoniland in the Niger Delta can pursue claims for environmental harm dating back decades, rejecting Shell’s attempt to escape liability based on procedural technicalities. For the tens of thousands of residents living with the aftermath of oil spills, this ruling opens a path forward. And for others watching from across the globe, where multinational corporations have extracted resources and left destruction behind, it’s a moment worth paying attention to. In this blog post, we’ll walk through what this decision says, why it matters, and how it fits into the long, powerful history of organizing and advocacy led by the Ogoni community.
Communities on the Frontlines
Today, Ogoniland is one of the most polluted regions in the world. The Bille and Ogale communities, which together are home to about 50,000 people, have lived for years with the consequences of Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary’s oil operations in the Niger Delta. Shell operated extensively in the region for decades. During that time, communities endured repeated oil spills, gas flaring, and widespread ecological degradation. As we’ve written before, these spills rendered drinking water unsafe, reduced agricultural productivity, and decimated local fisheries.
In Ogale, a 2011 UN report found benzene levels in groundwater nearly 900 times above WHO safety standards. In Bille, oil pollution damaged 13,200 hectares of mangrove forest. Despite international attention and repeated community demands for cleanup and compensation, meaningful remediation has still not taken place.
Notwithstanding a billion-dollar cleanup plan launched in 2016, progress has been dismal. The Nigerian agency tasked with remediation, the Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP), failed to restore even basic sites. The agency hired contractors with no relevant expertise, pollution levels were self-reported, fake lab tests were used to certify cleanup, and auditors were blocked from ascertaining if work had been completed. The UN has since severed ties with HYPREP, citing systemic mismanagement. Oil continues to spill across the Delta, while communities wait for basic remediation, safe drinking water, and accountability. The clean-up promised nearly a decade ago has yet to materialize.
Legal Background
In 2015, residents of Ogale and Bille, represented by UK law firm Leigh Day, filed suit in the UK against Shell and its Nigerian subsidiary (formerly Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria, as of 2025 called Renaissance Africa Energy). The plaintiffs brought various claims, including under Nigerian statutory and constitutional law, as well as under tort claims like negligence, nuisance, and trespass. They allege that Shell and its subsidiary are responsible for systemic oil pollution in the Niger Delta and are seeking both damages and cleanup of the affected areas.
Shell responded by challenging nearly every aspect of the case. It claimed it couldn’t be held responsible for spills caused by third parties (from oil theft and illegal refining), that many of the alleged harms were time-barred under Nigeria’s five-year statute of limitations, and that Shell shouldn’t be liable for actions taken by its Nigerian subsidiary. These arguments delayed progress for years. But this recent decision in the High Court (a senior civil court in England that hears complex cases) sharply limits Shell’s ability to avoid trial.
Read more about the history of this case.
What the Court Decided
The Court’s ruling addresses several key issues, and sets important precedents for environmental litigation against multinational corporations:
No statute of limitations for unremediated spills: The judge found that if Shell failed to clean up pollution from older spills, the continued presence of oil on community land could be considered an “ongoing breach.” In such cases, each day the pollution remains may trigger a fresh cause of action. This means that Shell could still be held liable for damage caused long ago, so long as its cleanup obligations remain unmet.
Third-party interference doesn’t excuse Shell: While Shell argued that sabotage and oil theft absolved it of responsibility, the Court disagreed. It held that Shell could be liable if it failed to take reasonable steps to prevent this kind of interference – or if Shell employees or contractors were complicit in the activity. The plaintiffs allege exactly that, and they will now have the opportunity to present that evidence at trial.
Parent company accountability affirmed: The Court reaffirmed that Shell, as the UK-based parent company, can be held liable alongside its former Nigerian subsidiary. This follows the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Okpabi v. Shell, which confirmed that UK parent companies can be sued for harms linked to their subsidiaries if they exercised control over, or negligently failed to supervise, those operations.
Recognition of human rights impacts: The judge also acknowledged that environmental harm of this scale could implicate the constitutional right to life under Nigerian law. While she declined to rule on that issue directly (noting that constitutional interpretation should be left to Nigerian courts), she noted that our collective understanding of environmental harm has shifted such that environmental destruction isn’t a solely local or regulatory issue, but it can also be a human rights violation. For communities like Ogale and Bille, where oil pollution has contaminated drinking water, destroyed farmland, and endangered health for years, this framing gives legal weight to what they’ve always known – that the harm they’ve suffered threatens not just their environment, but their lives and dignity.
(Read Leigh Day’s press release on this monumental court decision here.)
Why This Matters
This ruling is a major development in a case that has already shaped the landscape of corporate accountability. It affirms that companies cannot use the passage of time or third-party wrongdoing to absolve themselves of responsibility.
It also illustrates how transnational litigation can serve as a tool for affected communities to challenge entrenched power structures. After nearly a decade of legal battles, the Bille and Ogale communities will finally have an opportunity to present their claims at trial in 2027. The fact that this case is moving forward is a testament not just to strong legal advocacy, but to the persistence and organizing power of these communities.
As King Bebe Okpabi, the leader of Ogale, said after the ruling: “People in Ogale are dying; Shell needs to bring a remedy.”
