09/06/2023
*PETROLEUM (SPECIAL) TRUST FUND vs. FIDELITY BANK PLC & ORS.(2021)LCN/5087(SC)*
*ISSUE:* JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT-Whether by the authority of the Supreme Court case of NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY vs. EDEGBERO & ORS. (2002) 18 NWLR (PT. 789) 79 in determining whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear a claim it is unnecessary to examine the nature of the claim of the plaintiff(Issue is mine)
*PRINCIPLE:*
"The issue of jurisdiction of a Court of law is very important in the adjudication process. It is indeed the life blood of any adjudication, the fiat, the stamp of authority to adjudicate. The live wire of a case is jurisdiction and being a threshold issue, any proceeding conducted without jurisdiction come to naught, no matter the outcome of the proceedings. It is because of the critical importance of the issue of jurisdiction that it can be raised at any stage of proceedings even at the Apex Court for the first time.
In NURTW v. RTEAN (2012) 10 NWLR (PT.1307) PG. 170 at 189, the Supreme Court per Fabiyi, JSC, stated thus: "…it has been pronounced by this Court several times that jurisdiction is very fundamental. It is the live wire of a case which should be determined at the earliest opportunity. If a Court has no jurisdiction to determine a case, the proceedings remain a nullity ab initio no matter how well conducted and decided. This is so since a defect in competence is not only intrinsic, but extrinsic to the entire process of adjudication.”
Similarly in ARUEZE v. NWAUKONI (2019) 5 NWLR (PT.1666) PG 469 AT 478the Supreme Court per BAGE, JSC, stated thus: "Jurisdiction is the very basis on which any Tribunal tries a case, it is the lifeline of all trials. A trial without jurisdiction is a nullity. This vital and overwhelming importance of jurisdiction is the reason why it can be raised at any stage of a case, be it at the trial, on appeal to the Court of Appeal or to this Court; a fortiori the Court can suo motu raise it. It has even been said that it is always in the interest of justice to raise issue of jurisdiction so as to save time and costs and to avoid a trial in nullity…”
In ADAMA v. MAIGARI (2019) 3 NWLR (PT.1558) PG 26 AT 46, the Supreme Court per ONNOGHEN, CJN, stated thus: “Jurisdiction is a fundamental issue in adjudication and should be considered and resolved first before proceeding any further because it is now trite law that a proceeding conducted by a Court/Tribunal without the requisite jurisdiction is a nullity however well conducted… ”
The law is also settled that the term jurisdiction may have meaning in different contexts. In OBIUWEUBI v. CBN (2011) 7 NWLR (PT.1247) PG. 465 AT 506 PARAS. C-D, the Supreme Court per ADEKEYE, JSC, stated that: "…jurisdiction is a term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action. The term may have different meanings in a different context. It has been defined as the limits imposed on the power of a validly constituted Court to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process by reference to the subject matter of the issues or to the persons between whom the issues are joined or to the kind of relief sought… ”
These authorities have followed the spirit of the locus classicus case of MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 All NLR PG. 581 AT 589, where the Supreme Court per BAIRAMIAN, FJ, laid down the proper guidelines in determining the issue of jurisdiction of a Court of law. The Court stated that a Court is competent when:
i. “It is properly constituted as regards members and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and
ii. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
iii. The case comes before the Court initiated with due process of law, and upon fulfillment of a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.”
In this appeal, the appellant’s claim as contained in the Amended Statement of claim at page 34 of the Record reads as follows:
WHEREOF the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants jointly and severally is for:
“i. The sum of N33,065,868.70 being advance payment to the 3rd Defendant for the ex*****on of the National Rural Water Supply in Rivers State Lot RV 3/A, for a total contract sum of N66,131,737.56
ii. The Plaintiff further claims from the Defendants interest of 10% on the judgment sum, and the cost of this action, until payment of the entire sum guaranteed (N33,065,868.70) plus the cost and interest.”
In determining jurisdiction, it is the plaintiff claim that is at the front burner and it is not the parties that determine jurisdiction.
See AG. FEDERATION v. AG. ABIA STATE & ORS. (2001) 11 NWLR (PART 724) 689 AT 729 where in the Supreme Court held that it is Plaintiff’s claim that determines jurisdiction. Also in ONUORAH v. KADUNA REFINING & PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED (2005) 5 NWLR (PART 921) 393 AT 405, the Supreme Court went on to hold that: "In determining whether a Court has jurisdiction in a matter or not, the Court will examine or consider the nature of the Plaintiff's claim as disclosed in his writ of summons and statement of claim. In the instant case, the Appellant’s claims are all based on breach of simple contract between the parties. The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, however, does not admit matters of simple contract between parties.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s suit.”
A reference to the appellant’s claim would clarify the situation and I shall quote it.
The Appellant’s claim at the trial Court was thus:
23. WHEREOF the plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants jointly and severally is for:
a. The sum of N33,065,868.70 (Thirty-Three Million Sixty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-Eight Naira Seventy Kobo) only being the advance payment to the 3rd Defendant for the ex*****on of the National Rural Water Supply in Rivers State Lot RV.3/A, for a total contract sum of N66,131,737.56 (Sixty Six Million One Hundred and Thirty One Thousand Seen Hundred and Thirty Seven Naira Fifty Nine Kobo) only.
b. The Plaintiff further claims from the Defendants interest of 10% on the judgment sum and the cost of this action until payment of the entire sum guaranteed (N33,065,868.70) plus interest on the judgment sum.
Of note is that after the advance payment of the sum N33,065,868.70 (Thirty Three Million Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira Seventy Kobo) only was made to the 3rd Respondent as per the Deed of Guarantee, 3rd Respondent immediately abandoned the contract. Hence Plaintiff’s claim against the 1st Respondent for the said sum guaranteed.
What transpired between the 1st Respondent and the 3rd Respondent emanating in the issuance of the Deed of Guarantee is nothing, but a banker customer transaction, which transaction vests jurisdiction in the trial Court to hear and determine the suit. Certainly, the Federal High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction to hear the suit, notwithstanding fact that the Appellant is a Federal Government Agency.
A close examination of Section 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 will show that the Federal High Court is not conferred with jurisdiction to entertain claims founded in contract as in the instant case. Section 251(1) provides a limitation to the general and all-embracing jurisdiction of the State High Court, because the items listed under the said Section 251(1) can only be determined exclusively by the Federal High Court. All items in the list, would therefore still be within the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court, the trial Court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s claim. The lower Court therefore acted wrongly in its decision that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
The Appellant’s claim as quoted in the paragraph 4.02 above is for the sum of N33,065,868.70 (Thirty Three Million Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira Seventy Kobo) only against the 1st Respondent for the sum’ guaranteed since 3rd Respondent having collected the advance payment, abandoned the contract. The Appellant’s claim therefore relates to a breach of contract by the 3rd Respondent, resulting the Appellant recalling the advance payment sum guaranteed.
It was during the pendency of the suit, 3rd Respondent counter claimed against the Appellant, claiming N33,065,737.59 (Thirty Three Million Sixty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Seven Fifty Nine Kobo) only being the balance of the contract sum on the ground that it had fully executed the entire contract. Therefore, looking at the Appellant’s claim, and the counter-claim, they relate to breach of contract by the 3rd Respondent for abandoning the contract or against the Appellant for failure to fully pay the 3rd Respondent. There is nowhere either in the Appellant’s claim or 3rd Respondents counter-claim where the issue of administration or management of the Appellant is raised. It is plaintiff’s claim that determines jurisdiction and not what the Defendant says. The Respondent introduced extraneous issues into Appellant’s claim, and the Court of Appeal wrongly went along the same lines. There is nowhere. in Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as per the items listed therein where it shows that Federal High Court is conferred with jurisdiction to entertain claims founded on contract as in the instant case. The Supreme Court in ONUORAH v. KADUNA REFINING and PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED (supra) held that in matter of breach of simple contract only the Federal Capital Territory High Court or State High Court has jurisdiction to hear such claim. I shall quote for effect the provisions of Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
S. 251(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary …
1. Relating to the revenue of the Government of the Federation in which the said Government or any organ thereof or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the said Government is a party.
2. Connected with or pertaining to customs and excise duties and export duties, including any claim by or against the Nigeria customs services or any member or officer thereof, arising from the performance of any duty imposed under any regulation relating to customs and excise duties and export duties.
3. Connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institution, including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other measures.
4. Connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institution, including any action between one bank and another by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transaction between the individual customer and the bank.
5. Any matter arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act or any other enactment replacing that Act or Regulating the operation of companies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act.
6. Any Federal enactment relating to copyright, patent, designs, trademarks and passing-off, industrial designs and merchandise marks, business names, commercial and industrial monopolies, combines and trust, standards of goods and commodities and industrial standards.
7. Any admiralty jurisdiction, including shipping and navigation on the River Niger or River Benue and their affluent and on such other inland waterway as may be designated by any enactment to be an international waterway, all federal ports, (including the constitution and power of the ports authorities for federal ports) and carriage by sea.
8. Diplomatic, consular and trade representation.
9. Citizen, naturalization and alien, deportation of persons who are not citizens of Nigeria, extradition, immigration into and emigration from Nigeria, passports and visas.
10. Bankruptcy and insolvency.
11. Aviation and safety of aircraft.
12. Arms, ammunition and explosives.
13. Drugs and poison.
14. Mines and Minerals (including Oil Fields, Oil Mining, Geological Surveys and natural gas).
15. Weights and measures.
16. The administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any off its Agencies.
17. Subject to the provision of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
18. Any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.
19. Such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not as may be conferred upon it by an act of the National Assembly.
20. Provided that nothing in the provision of paragraph (p), (q) and (r) of this subsection shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.
The Court of Appeal held thus: “It is no longer necessary to examine the nature of the reliefs or claim in the lower Court, to determine which Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it is enough for one of the parties (plaintiff or defendant) to be the Federal Government or any of its agencies, then only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.”
Clearly, that portion of the Court of Appeal judgment is erroneous. The reason is plain and that is that the trial Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) had jurisdiction to determine the suit as the subject matter is not covered in Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution to warrant the Federal High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the appellant’s suit.
It need be reiterated that the decision of this Court in NEPA v. EDEGBERO (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt.789) 79 is not applicable to the case at hand as the facts in NEPA v. EDEGBERO are distinct and distinguishable to the facts of the case under discourse.
In NEPA’s case (supra), the Respondents were employees of the Appellant (National Electric Power Authority). Following an industrial action embarked upon by the employees of the Appellant, including the Respondents in August, 1994, the Respondents’ appointments were by a letter dated 10th August, 1994 terminated. The Respondents on the 17th day of August, 1994, instituted a suit against the Appellant. During the trial, Appellant’s counsel challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court of Niger State to hear and determine the matter, on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Court was ousted by virtue of Section 251(1) (q), (r) and (s) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), by Decree 107 of 1993, and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. The High Court overruled the Appellant on the issue of jurisdiction, holding that by virtue of the provisions to the said enactment, it can entertain the suit. The decision of the High Court was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
On appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court considered the provision of Section 230(1)(q), (r) and (s) of the 1979 Constitution and allowed the appeal, on the basis that the Respondents’ claim arose from an Employer-Employee relationship as per Section 230(1) (q), (r) and (s) of the 1979 Constitution.
The facts in the present appeal are quite distinguishable from the facts in NEPA’s case. In the present appeal, the 3rd Respondent, a contractor, on 4th May, 1998, secured a contract from the Appellant for the ex*****on of National Rural Water Supply in Rivers State LOT RV4, for a contract sum of N66,131,737.59 (Sixty-six million one hundred and thirty-one thousand seven hundred and thirty seven naira fifty-nine Kobo) only.
The policy of the Appellant at the material time was that all contractors who secured contracts from the Appellant must provide ADVANCE PAYMENT GUARANTEE from either bank or insurance company. On the strength of the terms and conditions of the contract, 3rd Respondent got the 1st Respondent to issue a Deed of Guarantee, wherein, the Appellant made payment to the tune of N33,065,868.70 (Thirty Three Million Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira Seventy Kobo) only to the 3rd Respondent, for the ex*****on of the contract.
Having collected the said N33,065,868.70 (Thirty Three Million Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira Seventy Kobo) only on the strength of Deed of Guarantee dated 6th June, 1998, the 3rd Respondent abandoned the entire contract. Appellant demanded for the sum guaranteed by 1st Respondent, 1st Respondent refused to authorise the said sum. Hence the suit, during the trial, 3rd and 4th Respondents challenged the trial Court’s jurisdiction to hear the suit, on the basis that the Appellant is an agency of the Federal High Court as per the provisions of Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution irrespective of Appellant’s claim, as what determines jurisdiction is parties and nothing more.
The decision in NEPA v. EDEGBERO (supra) cannot apply to the Appellant’s claim because in NEPA’s case, the Respondent’s claim bordered on termination of their appointment by the Appellant, which action this Court as per Section 230(1) (p), (r) and (s) of the 1979 Constitution, which is in pari material with the provisions of Section 251 (1), (q), (r) and (s) of the 1999 Constitution.
In this instance the Appellant’s claim, is based on the Deed of Guarantee dated 6th June, 1998, which was, issued by the 1st Respondent in favour of the Appellant, guaranteeing the ADVANCE PAYMENT of the sum of N33,065,868.70 (Thirty-Three Million Sixty Five Thousand Eight: Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira Seventy Kobo) only to the 3rd Respondent for the ex*****on of Rural Water Supply in Rivers State. Having collected the said N33,065,868.70 (Thirty-Three Million Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Eight Naira Seventy Kobo) only the 3rd Respondent abandoned the said contract. Appellant recalled the sum guaranteed.
The Appellant’s claim does not relate to administration, management and control of the Appellant, but merely relates to a breach of contract by the 3rd Respondent, having collected the Advance Payment as per the Deed of Guarantee.
At the risk of repetition, cases are decided on their facts. No case is decided outside its factual milieu. The facts in the Appellant’s case and NEPA’s case are not similar, therefore NEPA v. EDEGBERO (supra) cannot in any way apply to the Appellant’s case. Cases are decided on their peculiar facts in the light of the enabling law.
A perusal of the provisions of Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution, shows that there is no provision as contained in items listed therein where the Federal High Court is conferred with jurisdiction to entertain claims relating to breach of contract or simple contract as the case may be. See ONUORAH v. KADUNA REFINING PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LTD. (supra).
The 1st Respondent acted as a Guarantor to the 3rd Respondent, by issuing the Deed of Guarantee dated 6th June, 1998, guaranteeing the said sum of N33,065,868.70 (Thirty-Three Million Sixty Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty-Eight Naira Seventy Kobo) only paid to the 3rd Respondent for the ex*****on of the said Rural Water Supply in Rivers State. Since 3rd Respondent has abandoned the contract, 1st Respondent must refund the sum guaranteed. This claim has nothing to do with administration, management and control or the functions of the Appellant." Per PETER-ODILI, JSC.
*ABUJA INVESTMENT & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. vs. PAUL & ORS.(2018)LPELR-45827(CA)*
*ISSUE:* JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT-Whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain land matters
*PRINCIPLE:*
"The strong contention of the Appellant is that since the claims before the Lower Court bordered on title to land or right of occupancy the Lower Court has no jurisdiction in the matter while the 1st Respondent's contention is that irrespective of the claims before the Lower Court the 2nd - 5th Respondents gave jurisdiction to the Lower Court because they are agencies and agents of the Federal Government of Nigeria. The vex issue of the extent of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251(1) (a)-(s) has re-surged in this case. It used to be thought that once an agency or agent of the Federal Government is a party to an action the jurisdiction to adjudicate over the matter irrespective of the subject matter lies with Federal High Court thereby relegating the subject matter to the background. And this is the position taken by the 1st Respondent in this appeal. Yes it is true that some
decisions of the apex Court decided in the past that once an agency of the Federal Government is a party in a matter jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter resides with the Federal High Court. See: 1. CHIEF M.A. INEGBEDION VS. DR. SELO-OJEME (2013) 8 NWLR (PART 1356) 211 AT 226 F-A per ALAGOA, JSC who said:- "The question having now been settled that the 2nd Respondent Otibhor Okhae Teaching Hospital Irrua is an agency of the Federal Government, the next relevant question is whether the Appellant's claim relates to the administration or management and control of the 2nd Respondent. Paragraph 25 of the Statement of Claim is a claim in aggravated and/or
damages for defamation, negligence and breach of Doctor/Patient Confidence which undoubtedly relates to the administration or management of the Oribhor Okhae Teaching Hospital, Irrua sued as the 2nd defendant in the trial Court and is 2nd Respondent in this appeal and in the Lower Court. The effect of Paragraphs (p), (q) and (r) of Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution is to vest exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court over all civil causes and matters in which the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party. See NEPA v. Edegbero (2002) 103 LRCN 2280 AT 2281 - 2282. The Proviso to Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution does not in any way detract from the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by virtue of Section 251 (1) (p) and (r) consequently the Proviso cannot apply. From the foregoing, the sole issue for determination must be resolved in favour of the
Respondents against the Appellant and it is hereby so resolved. The Appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The Judgment of the Court of Appeal Benin Division delivered on the 27th February, 2004 upholding the ruling of Amaize J., of the Ekpoma High Court, Edo State delivered on the 13th May, 2002 is hereby affirmed. Parties are however to bear their own costs." (underlined nine). In his own Judgment in the said case, my Noble Lord who presided over the matter, I. T. Muhammad, JSC held on page 227 C-E and put it in the following pungent manner viz: "I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Alagoa, JSC. I am in agreement with him that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter as one of the parties that is, the 2nd Respondent is an Agency of the Federal Government. The law is unequivocally stated by the 1999 Constitution (as amended in Section 251(1) (p), (q), (r) and by this Court that where in matter, one of the parties is the Federal Government or any of its Agencies, it is only the Federal High Court that has exclusive jurisdiction. A State High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a matter. See National Electric Power Authority v. Edegbero 1 (2002) 118 NWLR (PT.789) 79." (Underlined mine). 2. BENSON AGBULE VS. WARRI REFINERY & PETROCHEMICAL CO. LTD. (2013) 6 NWLR (PART 1350) 318 delivered on 14th December, 2012 where at page 348 F-H Per OGUNBIYI, JSC who said: "On a gruesome and careful determination of the case NPA v. Edegbero (2003) 1 MJSC 69; (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 98, this Court per Ogundare, JSC, while interpreting the Constitutional enactment as provided in paragraphs (q), (r) and (s) of Section 230 (1), held the following pronouncement at pages 80 - 81 of the report and said: "From what I have said earlier in this judgment the aim of paragraphs (q), (r) and (s) of Sub-section 230 was to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court in matters in which the Federal Government or any of its agencies was a party. A State High Court would not long have jurisdiction in such matters notwithstanding the nature of the claim in the action." However the settled position now is that the apex Court in the land has, to the pleasant surprise of stakeholders in administration of justice come out with a significant interpretation of the said Section 251(1)(a) - (s) and came to firm conclusion that in determining whether Federal High Court has jurisdiction in a matter, the presence of Agencies of Federal Government as parties to the action will not be the yardstick to give jurisdiction to Federal High Court. The subject matter of the litigation must not be put under searching light in order to discern whether it (subject matter of litigation) falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. See:- 1. TERVER KAKIH VS. PDP & ORS. (2014) 15 NWLR (Part 1430) 374 AT 414 F-H per GALADIMA, JSC. 2. MRS UJU B. OSUDE VS. MRS EUCHARTA AZODO & ORS. (2017) 15 NWLR (PART 1588) 293 AT 322 D-H TO 323 A-G per GALINJE, JSC. 3. PETER ESSI VS. NIGERIA PORT PLC (2018) 2 NWLR (PART 1604) 361 AT 385 - 386 and 390 E-H per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC who said:- "In determining whether or not a Court had jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter, it is the plaintiff's claim as disclosed in his writ of summons and statement of claim that would be considered. Where the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is in issue, the mere fact that an agency of the Federal Government is a party is not sufficient, without more to confer jurisdiction on the Court. The Court deciding the issue will also take into consideration the nature and subject matter of claim. It has been held severally by this Court that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court provided for in Section 230(1)(s) of the 1979 Constitution, as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993 (now Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution) does not extend to dispute arising from simple contracts. See: Adelekan v. Ecu-Line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.993) 33; Onuorah v. K.P.P.C. Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393 @ 405 A-D & 409 A-D; Sun Insurance Nig. Plc. v. Ume Eng. Const. Cont. Co. Ltd. (2015) 11 NWLR (Pt.1471) 576; (2015) LPELR-24737(SC). The dispute between the parties in this suit is from a simple breach of a landlord/tenant contract. It does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court." 4. CHIEF RITA LORI OGBEBOR & ORS VS. INEC & ORS. (2018) 6 NWLR (PART 1614) 1 AT 22 G - H TO 23A per EKO, JSC who said: "Now, I come back to the contention of the appellants that what determines the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is the parties, and not the nature of the claim. To be specific, the appellants contend that where the action is in relation to the matters covered by Section 251(I) (p), (q) & (r) of the Constitution, the determinant is whether the party, either as the plaintiff or defendant, is the Federal Government or any of its agencies. To some extent this statement of law is correct, but in a limited sense. In the instant case, the appellants as the plaintiffs, have not been able to convince the judex that their suit has anything to do with the administration, management or control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies of the validity of any executive/administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies to warrant the Federal High Court interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution in that regard. This Court has shifted position from the blanket statement that in any Suit, where the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party, only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain such an action. In Onuoha v. Kaduna Refinery & Petrochemical Company (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt.921) 391 at 405, it has stated clearly that the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by the 1999 Constitution does not extend to claims founded on simple contract between the Federal Government or any of its agencies, and a third party. See also Adeleke v. Ecu-Line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.993) 33; (2006) 5 SC (Pt.2) 32 where Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) stated that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court does not Include dealing with any case of simple contract." 5. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, LAGOS STATE VS. EKO HOTELS LTD. (2018) 7 NWLR (PT.1619) 518 AT 552H TO 553 A-C where my Lord KERERE-EKUN, JSC said:- "In determining whether or not the Court has jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter, it is the originating processes filed by the plaintiff that would be considered. See: A.G. Federation v.
Guardian Newspapers Ltd (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt.618) 187; Uwaifo v. A.G. Bendel State (1982) 7 SC 124: (1983) 4 NCLR 1; Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 6 - 10 SC 31: Amaechi v. INEC (No.2) (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.1065) 98. In the course of this judgment, several references have been made to the cause of action that gave rise to this appeal. I need not repeat it again. Suffice it to say that both Lower Courts were of the opinion that the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit on two grounds: (a) by virtue of Section 251(1) (b) of the Constitution and (b) having regard to the fact that an agency of the Federal Government is a party - Section 251(1) (r). It is not correct as argued by learned counsel for the appellant, that the Courts simply relied on the fact that an agency of the Federal Government is a party. They also considered the subject matter of the action. This is in keeping with decisions of this Court in
cases such as: Ohakim v. Agbaso (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172 @ 236 - 27 G-D; Salim v. CPC (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt.1351) 501; Ucha v. Onwe (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386, to the effect that in determining the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, notwithstanding the fact that one of the parties is an agency of the Federal Government, the subject matter of the dispute is also relevant." 6. ADAOHA UGO-NGADI VS. FRN (2018) 8 NWLR (PART 1620) 29 AT 49D per GALINJE, JSC who said: "I wish to pause here in order to consider this brilliant academic argument by learned senior counsel which argument does not seem to fall in line with the decisions of this Court regarding the provision of Section 251(3) of the Constitution. Unlike the State High Court which is a Court of unlimited jurisdiction, the Federal High Court is a special Court with limited, but exclusive jurisdiction clearly specified under Section
251(1)(a)-(s) of the Constitution. There is nowhere in the Constitution or any other enactment where it is stipulated that any suit in which a Federal Government Ministry agency functionary or parastatal is sued is justiceable only in the Federal High Court except those cases specified under Section 251(1)(a-s) of the Constitution." I am of the firm view that where there is a dispute touching and concerning right of occupancy over land or acquisition or ownership of land in the Federal Capital Territory, it is the Federal Capital Territory High Court that is endowed with the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter. This is made eminently clear in Section 39(1) of the LAND USE ACT which provides:- '39(1) The High Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in respect of the following proceedings- (a) Proceedings in respect of any Land the subject of a Statutory Right of Occupancy granted by the Governor or deemed to be granted by him under this Act and for the purposes of this proceedings includes proceedings for a declaration of title to a Statutory Right of Occupancy. (b) Proceedings to determine any question as to the persons entitled to compensation payable for improvements of Land under this Act. 2. All Laws, including rules of Court, regulating the practice and procedure of the High Court shall apply in respect of proceedings to which this section relates and the Laws shall have effect with such modifications as would enable effect to be given to the provisions of this section." Section 51(2) of the said Land Use Act provides in respect of lands in Federal Capital Territory, Abuja thus:- "The power of a Governor under this Act shall in respect of land in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, or any land held or vested in the Federal Government in any State, be exercisable by the President or any Minister designated by him in that behalf and references in this Act to Governor shall be construed accordingly." Thus the powers to grant right of occupancy over land in Federal Capital Territory is vested in the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who may exercise his powers through any Minister of Government designated by him. There is evidence in this case that if was the Presidential Committee on Disposal of Federal Government Landed Properties in Abuja which Committee comprised of 2nd - 5th Respondents including the Hon. Minister of Federal Capital Territory that sold the land in dispute to the 1st Respondent following advertisement in National Dailies calling on interested buyers to purchase the land in dispute. The 1st Respondent as Plaintiff pleaded in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of his statement of claim (page 819) of the record as follows:- "12. The Plaintiff avers that after complying with the terms of offer by doing all that was required of him under the said terms, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants via the Presidential Committee on the Disposal of the Federal Government properties in Abuja (Games Village) proceeded and consequently delivered to him letters of allocation of Hut Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and the Barbeque Centre (2) with Reference Nos. GVA/LH/01/06/027 - 033 and Reference No. GVA/BC/01/06/002 all dated the 3rd day of April, 2006. The Plaintiff shall found and rely on the said letters of allocation at the hearing of this suit. 13. The Plaintiff avers that consequent upon clause 4 of the letters of allocation, he proceeded to the secretary of the Presidential Committee on the Disposal of the Federal Government properties in Abuja (Games Village) where he promptly complied with the checking in procedure and thereafter took proper of the said properties. 14. The Plaintiff avers that the said huts and Barbeque center were fully developed at the time they were sold and handed over to him by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and he has been in occupation of same since then." The Appellant as 1st Defendant pleaded in paragraphs 7 and 8 of its Amended Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim as follows:- "7. The Federal Government built the games village between September 2000 and August 2003 in preparation for the All African Games. The Presidential Committee on the Disposal of Federal Government Properties in Abuja (Games Village) conducted the first phase of the Sale of Games Village Houses in 2004 after which the Approved Guidelines For the Sale of Federal Government Houses in the FCT to the General Public and Political Office was published in the Federal Republic of Nigeria Official Gazette No. 82 Volume 92 as Government Notice No. 155 dated August 15, 2005. 7. The gazette Guidelines, in paragraph 2, authorize the sale of "ALL RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES (houses, flats, etc)... "That Gazette is hereby pleaded and shall be founded and relied upon at the trial." To my mind, Section 257 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended which provides as follows:- "257. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and any other provisions of this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as nay be conferred upon it by law, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall have unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person. (2) The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this section includes a reference to the proceedings which originate in the High Court of the Federal, Capital Territory, Abuja and those which are brought before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to be dealt with by the Court in the exercise of its appellate or supervisory jurisdiction." Vest jurisdiction in the Federal Capital Territory High Court to entertain the subject matter of this action and not the Federal High Court. This has been emphatically resolved and laid to rest by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of JOSIAH AYODELE ADETAYO & ORS. VS. KUNLE ADEMOLA & ORS. (2010) 6 SCM 1 at 169 -18A-B where MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC who read the leading judgment firmly held thus: "Close examination of the entire provision of the 1999 Constitution prescribing the jurisdiction of Federal High Court to the exclusion of all other Courts, there is nothing therein specifically conferring jurisdiction in that Court in causes of matters land disputes. Although the section also indicated that the National Assembly may confer additional jurisdiction to the Court to entertain causes and matters on land disputes. If any such additional jurisdiction had been given, the most relevant statute to examine in search for it in my view, is the Land Use Act because jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain land matters cannot be inferred by implication in the construction of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution the meaning of which is quite clear and plain as no causes or matters in land dispute
are mentioned therein. Since the provisions of Section 251 (1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution are not helpful in tracing any jurisdiction in land matters to the Federal High Court as jurisdiction of Court is derived from statutes conferring the jurisdiction, I decide to examine the provisions of the Land Use Act 1978 which was promulgated specially and specifically to deal with the control and management of land in Nigeria. The Court conferred with jurisdiction to entertain disputes between Nigerians in exercising their rights to acquire and use land under the Act are clearly specified therein. The relevant Sections in this respect are sections in this respect are Sections 39, 41 and 42 respectively which states - "JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURTS AND OTHER COURTS. Jurisdiction of High Courts; The High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the following proceedings: (a) Proceedings in respect of any
land the subject of the Statutory Right of Occupancy granted by the Governor or deemed to be granted by him under this Act, and for the purpose of this paragraph, includes proceedings for a declaration of title to a Statutory Right
of Occupancy. (b) Proceedings to determine any question as to those entitled to compensation payable for improvements on land under the Act. (2) All Laws, including rules of Court, regulating the practice and procedure of the High Court shall apply in respect of proceedings to which this Section relates and the laws shall have effect with such modifications as would enable effect to be given to the provisions of this section. Jurisdiction of Area Courts or Customary Courts etc. An Area Court or Customary Court or other Court of Equivalent jurisdiction in a state shall have jurisdiction in respect of proceedings in respect of a Customary Right of Occupancy granted by a Local Government under this Act; and for the purpose of this paragraph "proceedings" includes; Proceedings for a declaration of title to a Customary Right of Occupancy and all laws including rules of Court regulating practice and
procedure of such Court shall have effect with such modifications as would enable effect be given to this section. (1) Proceedings for the recovery of rent payable in respect of any Certificate of Occupancy may be taken before a
Magistrate's Court of competent Jurisdiction by and in the name of the Chief Land Officer or by and in the name of any other officer appointed by the Governor in that behalf. (2) Proceedings for the recovery of rent payable in respect of any Customary Right of Occupancy may be taken by and in the name of the Local Government concerned in the Area Court or Customary Court of equivalent jurisdiction." It is quite clear for the provisions of the above
sections of the Land Use Act with specific powers and jurisdiction in respect of land matters specified therein conferred on State High Court is not one of the Courts conferred with jurisdiction to entertain any dispute in the land matters. Infact the purpose of which Sections 39, 41 and 42 of the Land Use Act are designed to serve are very clear. While Section 39 excludes Area Courts and Customary Court from exercising jurisdiction in respect of land the subject of Statutory Right of Occupancy. Section 41 redefines the jurisdiction of the Courts referred to therein so as to ensure that Courts, such as the Customary Courts in Southern State of this had previously been exercising concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court without distinction by classification of land, have their jurisdiction limited as stated therein. In other words while the State High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over lands in Urban Areas by virtue of Section 39(1) of the Land Use Act, that Courts shares jurisdiction with only the Area Courts and Customary Courts or other Courts of equivalent jurisdiction by virtue of both the Jurisdiction of the State High Court under Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution and the jurisdiction conferred on the Area Courts and Customary Courts by virtue of Section 41 of the Act. As there is nothing in these Section 39, 41 and 42 of the Land Use Act that conferred
jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to entertain land causes or matters, I entirely agree with the Court below that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and entertain any dispute declaration of the title to land."
Furthermore, the Land Use Act has by Section 315(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended been entrenched into the said Constitution and made part of the Constitution. It thus means that all sections of Land Use Act are deemed to be part and parcel of our Constitution. That being the case Section 39 of the said Land Use Act remains inviolate and vests jurisdiction in land matter in Federal Capital Territory Abuja in the High Court of Federal Capital Territory. The said Section 315(5) of the 1999 Constitution as amended provides:- "315(5) Nothing in this Constitution shall invalidate the following enactments, that is to say- (a) the National Youth Service Corps Decree1993; (b) the Public Complaints Commission Act; (c) the National Security Agencies Act; (d) the Land Use Act, and the provisions of those enactments shall continue to apply and have full effect in accordance with their tenor and to the like extent as any other provisions forming part of this Constitution and shall not be altered or repealed except in accordance with the provisions of Section 9(2) of this Constitution." See also the case of THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA VS. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE (2018) 6 NWLR (PART 1615) 314 AT 349 E-G, per PETER-ODILI, JSC who said:- "Also important to note is that the subject matter of the dispute is the right of control of Amansea land in Anambra State, which the plaintiff claimed it acquired through the instrumentality of the Anambra State Government clearly within the ambit of the Land Use Act. I
shall quote the relevant section thereby being Section "39(1) The High Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in respect of the following proceedings- (a) Proceedings in respect of any land the subject matter of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor or deemed to be granted by him under this Act, and for the purpose of this proceedings include proceedings for a declaration of title to a statutory right of occupancy: (2) All laws, including rules of Court, regulating the practice and procedure, the High Court shall apply in respect of proceedings to which this section relates and the laws shall have effect with such modifications and would enable effect to be given to the provisions of this section." I fully agree with the submissions of learned counsel to the Appellant to the effect that the Lower Court, the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on that subject matter of the Plaintiff's action (1st Respondent in this Appeal) and the decision of the Federal High Court in this matter is null and void. The Lower Court ought to have declined jurisdiction and utilize its power of transfer of the suit to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory." Per IGE, JCA.(Pp.20-41,Paras.A-E).
