N.P.D.C v. EDARIESE (2020)

N.P.D.C v. EDARIESE

(2020)LCN/14710(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ASABA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, November 20, 2020

CA/AS/438/2016

RATIO

JURISDICTION: WHAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT

trite and settled position of the law that the jurisdiction of a Court to determine a case or matter is based on the claims of the (claimant) party as made.
It is not garnered from the Defendants Defence or postulations of what the plaintiff seeks or claims.
See KAYIL V YILBUK (2015) LPELR 24323 (SC); INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF ALGON VS RIOK (NIG) LTD (2018) LPELR 45289 (CA).
Indeed this settled position of the law was only recently as on 30th October, 2020 re-emphasized by this Court in Appeal No. CA/AS/218/2013 Technic Oil Field Support Vs. Engr. Felix Doghudje where His Lordship Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA in an appeal where the Respondent claimant had claimed as follows:
a) Six (6) months consultancy allowance from 1st March – 31st August, 2011 at the rate of N350,000.00 per month – 2,100,000.00 (Two Million One Hundred Thousand Naira)
b) Consultancy fee for Afiesere NGC station matering & recirculation line contract – N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira).
c) Consultancy fee for Omoloro NGC Station metering & Circulation line Contract – N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira)
d) 0.5% consultancy fee for the Defendant OPI Int’l Nig. Ltd sub-contract in FYIP – USD 375,000.00 equivalent to N56,250,000.00 (Fifty-Six Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira).
e) Olomoro NGC station completion bonus – N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira).
f) Outstanding contract facilitation fee – N21,000.00 (Twenty-One Thousand Naira)
Total – N59,871,000.00
g) Damages of N4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira)
And the Appellant as Defendant had brought a Notice of preliminary objection pursuant to Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) of the Constitution, 1999 on the ground that the lower Court lacked the substantive jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject matter of the case being one relating to or connected with labour, employment, and/or arising from alleged non-payment of wages, allowance, benefits and such other entitlement(s) as can be claimed by an employee/worker or purported employee/worker.
The lower Court in her Ruling of 13th March, 2013 dismissed the preliminary objection of the Appellant. On Appeal, M.E. Okusare Esq., of Ukusare & Associates formulated a sole Issue for determination thus: Having regard to the provisions of Section 254(1) (a) & (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; was the Learned Trial Judge right in holding that the Respondent’s (claimant’s) claim falls within the jurisdiction of the Delta State High Court and outside the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
Obaseki Adejumo JCA, re-affirmed thus;
The parties are ad idem on the issue for determination in this appeal. The crucial question that needs answering in this appeal is whether or not the lower Court is vested with jurisdiction to entertain the matter?
It is a trite principle of law that in determining the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a matter/cause, the Court would resort to the writ of summons and claim of the Claimant. See; MARAFA & ORS v DAN ALHAJI & ORS (2019), per YAKUBU, JCA;
” … Furthermore, the law has been well settled to the effect that in order for the Court to determine whether or not it possesses the required competence to determine the cause of action placed before it, the processes that were filed in order to activate its jurisdiction, which it needs to examine, are the writ of summons and the statement of claim only. And where the action was begun by originating summons, then it is the reliefs sought therein as well as the depositions contained in the affidavit in support of the originating summons, that would be examined in order to discern if the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the action. These are the only processes from which the facts giving rise to the cause of action can be gleaned for the Court to inquire into and determine whether it has the jurisdiction to determine the plaintiffs’ action. This is because, it is the plaintiff who invokes the constitutional right for a determination of his right and accordingly the activation of the judicial powers vested in the Courts by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. That is, it is the plaintiffs demand and not the defendant’s answer to that demand that is a relevant issue for consideration at that stage. Therefore, ordinarily, it is the claim of the plaintiff only and not the defence, which the Court looks at to determine its jurisdiction. Adeyemi & Ors v. Opeyori (1976) LPELR – 171 (SC) @ 21-22; Attorney General, Oyo State v. Nigeria Labour Congress (2003) 8 NWLR (pt.821) 1; Akande & 2 Ors v. Busari Alagbe & Anor. (2001) FWLR (pt.38) 1352; Attorney General Federation v. Guardian Newspaper Ltd & 5 Ors (1999) 9 NWLR (pt.618) 187; Messers N. V. Scheep & Anor v. The MV ‘S Araz & Anor (2000) 15 NWLR (pt.691) 622; (2000) FWLR (pt.34) 556; National Electric Power Authority v. Atukpor (2001) FWLR (pt.20) 626; General Sani Abacha & 3 Ors v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (pt.660) 228; (2000) FWLR (pt.4) 557; Okulate & 4 Ors v. Awosanya & 2 Ors (2000) 2 NWLR (pt.646) 530; Senator Yakubu Lado & Ors v. Congress for Progressive Change & Ors (2011) LPELR- 8254 (SC) @ 35; Inakoju v. Adeleke & Ors (2007) 4 NWLR (pt.1025) 1; Jev v. Iyortyom (2014) 14 NWLR (pt.1428) 575.”
(PP. 46-48, PARAS. E-D). EE PER DANJUMA, J.C.A.
ACTION: BASIS UPON WHICH A CAUSE OF ACTION IS FOUNDED

The basis upon which a cause of action is founded is usually gleaned from the statement of claim in IBE & ANOR v BONUM (NIG) LTD (2019) LPELR – 46452 (CA).
The Court held thus;
“The parties have correctly given the meaning ascribed to cause of action ……Cause of action is the factual basis or some factual situations a combination of which makes the matter in litigation an enforceable right or an actionable wrong. See IBRAHIM vs. OSIM (1988) 1 NNSC 1184 at 1194 (per Uwais, JSC as he then was) and TUKUR vs. GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) 517 at 581. In THOMAS vs. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT 18) 669 at 682, the Supreme Court (per Obaseki, JSC) adopted the dictum of Pearson, LJ in DRUMMOND-JACKSON vs. BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1970) 1 WLR 688 at 696 wherein the phrase ‘reasonable cause of action’ was defined thus: ” … No exact paraphrase can be given, but I think means a: cause of action with some chance of success, when … only the allegations in the pleadings are considered) ….. In determining whether a reasonable cause of action is disclosed, the Court needs only to look at and examine the averments in the statement of claim. See AJAYI vs. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR; ONDO STATE (1997) 5 NWLR (PT 503) 237, 7UP BOTTLING CO. LTD vs. ABIOLA [2001] 29 WRN 98 at 116, NICON INSURANCE CORP. vs. OLOWOFOYEKU (supra), ELEMA vs. NEPA (supra) and OTUBU v OMOTAYO (1995) 6 NWLR (PT 400) 247. The statement of claim must set out the legal right of the plaintiff and the obligation of the defendant. It must then go on to set out facts constituting infraction of the plaintiffs legal right or failure of defendant to fulfil his obligation in such a way that if there is no proper defence, the plaintiff will succeed in the relief or remedy he seeks: THOMAS vs. OLUFOSOYE (supra), EGBE vs. ADEFARASIN (supra) and RINCO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD vs. VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED (2005) 9 MJSC 197 at 204. It is sufficient for a Court to hold that a cause of action is disclosed and is reasonable once the processes filed disclose some cause of action or some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, notwithstanding that the case is weak or not likely to succeed…..”
per OGAKWU, J.C.A (PP. 20-23, PARAS. C-F)
See also; CRESTWOOD HOLDINGS LTD v WEMA BANK PLC (2019) LPELR – 46821 (CA); ENEH v NDIC & ORS (2018) LPELR, – 44902 (SC); MAHMUD v HAUSAWA & ORS (2018) LPELR – 46073 (CA); ZAKIRAI v MUHAMMAD & ORS (2017) LPELR – 42349 (SC). PER DANJUMA, J.C.A.

COURT: JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT OF A STATE

In the circumstance, therefore, the plenitude of the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delta State to adjudicate over the suit under its constitutionally endowned jurisdiction and power vide Section 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) cannot be faulted.
The Section 272 (1) provides as follows:
“Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court of a State shall have 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.” PER DANJUMA, J.C.A.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: RIGHT TO COMPENSATION IN THE PROPRIETORY OWNERSHIP OF LAND

The right to compensation or damages in the proprietory ownership of their land was guaranteed by Section 44 of the Constitution of Nigeria which provides as follow:
“44 (i) No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law that amongst other things;
a) Requires the prompt payment of compensation therefore and
b) Gives to any person claiming such compensation right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a Court of law or Tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria. PER DANJUMA, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Ayobode Olujimi Lokulo-Sodipe Justice of the Court of Appeal

Mohammed Ambi-Usi Danjuma Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

NIGERIAN PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD APPELANT(S)

And

AMREVUAWHO PETER EDARIESE RESPONDENT(S)

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): At the High Court of Justice of Delta State, sitting at Otu-Jeremi, the Respondent herein as Plaintiff had by a suit No. HCG/74/95 for himself and as Attorney for the Edariese Efedjamah Family claimed by his writ of summons dated 15th December, 1995 and filed on 15-12-1995 as follows:
“CLAIMS
The Plaintiff claims for himself and on behalf of Edariese family also known as Edariese Efediama family who have granted him power of Attorney against the Defendant the sum of N15,000,000 (Fifteen million naira) being compensation due to the family for items of property assessed and damaged and farming right lost by the Defendant’s acquisition of Owopele of North ‘A’ Oil location situate at Evue bush at Oviri Olamu, a place within the jurisdiction of the Court and interest in the Court and interest in the said sum or any adjudged amount at the rate of 12% per annum from August 1995 until payment of the money. Any other suitable relief.…”

By his 3rd Amended statement of claim, the Plaintiff claimed as follows:
“Whereupon Plaintiff claims on

behalf of his family who has granted him power of Attorney against the Defendant is:
1. The sum of N9,131,300 (Nine million, One Hundred and Thirty one Thousand, Three Hundred Naira) only being fair and reasonable compensation due to the Edariese family from the Defendant for her entry and her activities on the family land.
2. Any other sum found to be fair and adequate compensation due to the Edariese Efedjamah family.
3. Interest on the said sum of N9,131,300 (Nine Million, One Hundred and Thirty one Thousand, Three Hundred Naira) or any adjudged amount at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) per annum from August 1995 until date of Judgment and ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of judgment until total liquidation of the judgment.
4. Any other suitable reliefs.
Dated this 18th day of February 2013.”
See pages 3-7 of the Record of Appeal.

FACTS OF THE CASE
In or about January, 1995, the Appellant approached the Oviri-Olumu Community including the Edariese Efedjamah family and expressed her intention to possess a vast area of land where oil deposit was discovered and to convert the land to access road and camp

site. The Appellant christened the area Ilowopele North “A” Oil Location. The Respondent who own substantial part of the land also have different economic trees, crops, animal traps, fish fence and ponds thereon as they farmed on the land. The Appellant had a mutual understanding with the said Community and the Respondent’s family to pay compensation to them in respect of various persons and families whose properties were destroyed and rights affected. The Appellant engaged the services of Messrs Uche Oti & Co., an Estate Valuer to value and assess the quantum of compensation due and payable in respect of the land and properties thereon.
The firm of Uche Oti & Co. who worked with the firm of Bellos & Bellos Associates engaged by the Respondent, came out with a valuation report after the valuation exercise and submitted same to the Appellant. After the assessment and valuation, the Appellant appealed passionately to the Respondent’s family and other families affected to allow her prepare the land for drilling operations/activities and agreed to pay the said compensations promptly. On the strength of this promise/assurance, the Respondent

allowed and gave the Appellant permission to enter the land. The Appellant entered the land with her equipment and machines and bulldozed/destroyed all the Respondent’s economic trees, food crops, ponds, etc. After the destruction, the Appellant brought another Estate Surveyor and Valuer to assess and value the Respondent’s properties with respect to payment of compensation when all the economic trees, crops, etc. on the land have been destroyed and bulldozed. The Respondent’s family being dissatisfied with the Appellant’s action refused to participate in such assessment exercise.
The Respondent brought this action against the Appellant before the Honourable trial Court after the Appellant consistently refused, failed and neglected to pay to the Respondent’s family fair and adequate compensation assessed in respect of the land despite repeated demands.
The case was commenced at the trial Court as Suit No. HCG/34/95 but was transferred from the trial Court to the Federal High Court, Benin. When the Asaba Division of the Federal High Court was created, it was then transferred to Asaba. At Asaba, the Appellant objected to the jurisdiction of the Federal

High Court and the case was transferred back to trial Court. This matter was transferred to the trial Court on the ground that “the claim for compensation due to Edariese Efedjamah family from the Defendant: fair and adequate compensation and the interest claimed is not within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

The Grounds of Appeal as contained at the said pages 41-42 of the Record are as follows:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
GROUND 1
The learned trial Judge erred in law in failing to observed that jurisdiction in the claim in this action is vested in the Federal High Court and not in the High Court of Delta State.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i) Section 251 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic, of Nigeria confers jurisdiction in respect of all matters in the Exclusive Legislative List on the Federal High Court.
ii) In the alternative Section 7 of the Federal High Court Act confers jurisdiction in respect of’ civil causes and matters connected with or pertaining to mines and minerals, including oil fields, oil mining) ‘geological’ surveys and natural gas on the Federal High Court.

iii) Section 8 (1) of the Federal High Court Act prohibits the High Court or any other Court of a state from exercising jurisdiction.
iv) Both the Constitution and the Federal High Court Act confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in respect of all maters connected with or pertaining to the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies and/or connected with oil fields, oil mining, etc
v) The Defendant is an agency of the Federal Government.
GROUND 2
The learned trial Judge erred in law in assuming jurisdiction to entertain the case on the ground that the claim is for compensation and therefore the State High Court has jurisdiction.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
i) The Plaintiff’s claim is actually in the nature of damages for destruction caused to crops and other properties in the course of oil mining activities/operations by the Defendant
ii) The cause of action arose from damages allegedly caused to crops and other properties in the cause of oil mining operations.
iii) The jurisdiction of the State High Court is ousted by the Constitution and Federal High Court Act in matters

or issues concerning compensation for pollution and damages resulting from mining operations and or related matters.

Upon the regularization of the Record of Appeal on 11-10-2014, same having been compiled and transmitted out of time, the respective learned counsel on the 19th day of October, 20 adopted their clients respective Brief of Argument which were both filed out of time and regularized on 26-6-2020.

The Appellant, by his Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated and filed on 23-10-2017 and which was settled by its learned counsel Irikefe Ovwighorienta, Esq. of Dr. DD Mowoe (SAN) & Co, Mowoe Law House, 90 Refinery Road, Ekpan, Delta State, raised a sole Issue for determination thus: Whether on the totality of the plaintiff’s 3rd Amended Statement of claim and the documents frontloaded with it, the Delta State High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the substantive suit.”

The Respondent adopts the sole Issue of the Appellant as it asked the same question: “Whether the learned trial judge was right in holding that the claim in this suit can be entertained by the Delta State High Court.”

ARGUMENT OF SOLE ISSUE
APPELLANT – The Appellant submitted that the jurisdiction of the Court is determined by the claim of the Plaintiff or claimant and by a look at the statement of claim as a whole and not in isolated paragraphs.

The learned counsel urged for a look at 3rd Amended Statement of claim which he said showed an action against the Defendant as an Agency of the Federal Government who entered plaintiff’s alleged land in the course of “Oil Exploration Activities” Counsel referred us to paragraphs 2-21 of the said 3rd Amended Statement of claim at pages 3-7 of the record. Refers also to valuation report made by the plaintiff’s valuer in a bid to justify the damages claimed at pages 8-14 of the record of Appeal.

Learned counsel submitted that the Delta State High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff’s claim. That the reading of the paragraphs of the statement of claim and the frontloaded valuation report made to support the claim shows clearly that the Plaintiff’s claim was for damages as a result of alleged destruction of properties in the course of oil exploration activities of the

Defendant on Plaintiff’s alleged land.

To drive home his views and position, the learned counsel reproduced the paragraphs 2,4,5,10,11,13,18,19 and 21 of the Statement of claim thus:
“2. The Defendant is a publicly owned company incorporated under the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and carrying on business of prospecting for and producing mineral oil throughout Nigeria including Oviri-Olomu in Ughelli South Local Government Area, Delta State of Nigeria.
4. A substantial portion of the land where the oil deposits were discovered is owned by the Edariese Efedjamah family who has extensive rubber plantation, palm oil. trees, ‘mango/orange trees raffia palm and various other food/economic crops, stakes, animal traps, fish fence and ponds thereon. The Edariese family through’ her members and/or allottees also farmed on the area for the benefit of the family
5. The Defendant informed the Oviri-Olomu Community of its oil exploration activities and expressed her intention to acquire’ the vast area of land at Evue Bush where the oil deposits were discovered, including the campsite and the access road

Plaintiff avers that after the field assessment and valuation exercise, the Defendant appealed to the Edariese Efedjamah family and other families/persons affected by the Defendant’s operation/activities to allow her prepare the land for drilling operations/activities so as to avert the adverse effect of the approaching rainy season. The Defendant also assured the affected families/individuals that as soon as the firm of Uche Oti & Co., submitted the valuation report, they would commence payment of the assessed compensation. The said families/individuals were further assured that payment would not in any event exceed the month of April 1995
On the strength of the Defendant’s assurance aforementioned, the Edariese Efedjamah family and the other families/persons affected by the Defendant’s operations/activities gave permission to the Defendant to commence work on the land. The Defendant moved her equipment and machines onto the land and bulldozed and destroyed all the economic and food crops/trees on the land including economic activities being carried on therein.
13. Plaintiff avers that sometime in June 1995, and after all the properties on

the Land have been bulldozed and destroyed, one Chief M. O. Uloho, the Managing Partner of Uloho & Co., a firm of Estate Surveyors and Valuers visited the Oviri-Olornu community and introduced his firm as having been commissioned by the Defendants in place of the firm of Uche Oti & Co., to carry out a fresh valuation exercise in respect of the destroyed properties and farming rights over the oil location sites, campsite and access road acquired by the Defendant.
18. Plaintiff avers that the: Defendant’s entry onto the Edariese Efedjamah family land is in total disregard of the terms upon which an oil company may enter private land under an oil Mining Lease or License.
19 Plaintiff shall further contend that the Defendant having felled, bulldozed and cleared off the rubber trees and various other cash/food crops and economic trees belonging to the Edariese family immediately after the assessment and valuation exercise, carried out by the firm of Uche Oti & Co., and/or Belles & Bellos Associates, it was not possible for her to carry out a genuine and reliable valuation exercise thereafter.
21. Plaintiff avers that it

would entail heavy cost and delay to bring Dr. Bello to testify again and Plaintiff cannot afford the cost involved. Plaintiff shall therefore rely on the previous evidence of his Valuer, Dr. Bello before Honourable Justice Auta of the Federal High Court.

In aid, Counsel is insistent that the Defendant/Appellant is an “Agency of the Federal Republic of Nigeria” and the NNPC Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 relied upon.

That the Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendant in the course of prospecting for and producing mineral oil at Evue Bush, entered into Plaintiff’s alleged land, bulldozed and destroyed all economic and food crops/trees on the land including economic activities being carried on therein. Relies particularly on the paragraphs 10,11,19 of the statement of claim and the valuation report.

That the fact that the plaintiff calls the amount claimed as compensation does not detract from the fact that plaintiff is claiming damages for destruction of crops, etc in the process of oil mining activities, as can be seen in his statement of claim.

Counsel also anchoring on

Section 7(1) (n) and (p) of the Federal High Court Decree No. 60 of 1991 (i.e Federal High Court Act, Laws of the Federation 2004, Cap F12) and Section 251 (1) (n) and (p) of the Constitution of FRN, 1999 (as amended).

The Section 2 of the Federal High Court Amendment Act thus: “2 – For Section 7 of the Principal Act there shall be substituted the following new section, that is:
7(1) The Court shall to the exclusion of any other Court have original jurisdiction to tray civil causes or matters connected with or pertaining to (p) mines and minerals, including fields oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas.”

That the aforesaid provisions has been reinforced by Section 251 (1) of the Constitution to the same effect. Barry V. Eric (1998) 8 NWLR (pt 562) 402 relied on.

Where special and general damages of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) was claimed for causing the migration of bees from their Bee farm was held by Katsina Alu, JCA as being a cause of action arising in the course of oil prospecting activities by the Defendants/Appellants and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court by Decrees 60 of 1991 and 107 of 1993 and

that the State High Court lacked jurisdiction. That the Omoku High Court was in error in assuming jurisdiction.

Reference was also made to Black’s law Dictionary, (10th Edition) at page 343 for the Definition of “compensation” NEPA V Kehinde (2013) ALL FWLR (pt 680) 1266 at 1329 and McGregor on Damages 14th Edition, page 3, paragraph 1 to contend that compensation and damages are synonymous and by the pleadings in the matter on appeal refer to Damages caused in the course of oil mining and therefore was a claim exclusively determinable by the Federal High Court and without any jurisdiction in the State High Court as was assumed.

The learned counsel contended that the facts of this case differ from that in Nkuma Vs. Odili (2006) 6 NWLR (pt 977) 587 relied upon by the trial Court.

It was argued that the case was not a simple land dispute or a simple claim of entitlement to compensation for land as in the case of Nkuma Vs Odili (supra). Reproducing and relying on paragraph 18 of the 3rd Amended Statement of claim thus:
“18 – Plaintiffs aver that the defendant’s entry onto the Edariese Efedjamah family land

is in total disregard of terms upon which an oil company may enter private land under an oil mining lease or license.”
It was argued that plaintiff did not even put forward a case of simple claim for compensation for land acquired on mutual terms.
Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited Vs. Maxon (2001) FWLR (pt 47) 1030 at 1045 (CA) and C.G.G (Nig) Ltd Vs Ogu (2005) ALL FWLR pt 261 also relied upon. LNG Ltd Vs. Green (2010) ALL FWLR (pt 530) 1300.

Submit that any civil cause or matter arising from or connected with or pertaining to mines and minerals, including oil fields oil mining geological surveys and natural gas come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and the State High Court has no jurisdiction when an action involves such matters in any form or to any degree.

That the trial Court did not avert to the fact that the damages arose from oil exploration and exploitation activities on plaintiff’s alleged family land.

It was therefore argued that the cause of action has to do with alleged destruction of economic crops, food crops, fish fences, animal traps, ponds etc in the cause of mining

activities or operations of the Defendant, an oil company.

That only the Federal High Court had jurisdiction and that we should allow the appeal and strike out the plaintiff’s action with what he called “swinging costs”.

The Respondent Address
The Respondent, submitted that the trial Court was right in holding that there was jurisdiction in the trial High Court concurrently with the Federal High Court.

He submitted that the jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the claimant’s claim. He relies on Okorocha Vs. United Bank for Africa Plc (2011) 1 NWLR (pt 1228) 348 @ 3731, AG Federation Vs. Attorney General Abia State (2001) 11 NWLR (pt 725) 689 at 740 (SC); Orthopaedic Hospitals Management Board Vs. Garba (2002) 14 NWLR (pt 788) 538 @ 564 per Ogundare, JSC, A.G. Anambra State Vs A.G. Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (pt 302) 692 @ 742 paragraph Ogundare, JSC. Reproducing paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19 and 21 of the statement of claim as amended, submitted that it was clear that the claim of the respondent is a simple claim for compensation for the family properties on the land destroyed during the acquisition.

That it was a constitutional entitlement under Section 44 of the Constitution to be paid compensation for acquisition of land.

That because Appellants were in a hurry, they pleaded with Plaintiff/Respondent to proceed to clear the land and to pay the compensation subsequently at a fixed date being April 1995 at the latest.

That this was not a case of causing damage in the course of oil exploration as painted by the Appellant. That it was a case of compensation for properties worked out by the Appellant itself. And that the state High Court had jurisdiction in the circumstances.

That the valuation was done by the Appellant’s valuer with whom the Respondent’s value worked and the report of Appellant’s valuer was submitted to it.

That Section 251 (1) (n) and (p) of the Constitution FRN (as amended) was in applicable and that Nkuma V. Odili (2006) 6 NWLR (pt 977) 58 @ 602 SC applied as a simple claim concerning entitlement to compensation for land.

Learned counsel submitted that the Appellant only strenuously labored to show that compensation and damages were the same and contended that the implication

would be that there can be liquidated and unliquidated compensation, pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation, aggravated, prospective, exemplary, general, special and nominal compensation if compensation and damages are one and the same thing.

It was submitted on this that it was as absurd as the Appellant was completely wrong in that regard.

It was submitted that the view that Appellant was a Federal Government Agency and therefore suits against same was only triable by the Federal High Court was wrong as the counter part or twin requirement that the subject matter must also be within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court must be satisfied.
Ohakim Vs. Agbaso (2010) 19 NWLR pt (1226) 172 at 236-237 relied upon for the view.
Obiuweubi Vs. Central Bank of Nigeria (2011) 7 NWLR (pt 1247) 465 @ 513 SC also relied upon.
It was submitted that the cases of Barry Vs. Eric (1998) 8 NWLR (pt 562) 404, Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd V. Maxon (2001) FWLR (pt 47) 1030 relied upon by Appellants were not applicable to the facts of this case, which claim therein was for compensation for Respondent’s properties which was assessed

by the Appellant’s Valuers – Uche Otti & Co. Appellants had promised to pay the fair and reasonable compensation as assessed by her valuers and pleaded with the Respondent to allow her bulldoze the properties and was obliged.

Reneging instead of paying when the time promised came and sought to reevaluate the properties already bulldozed, hence the suit. That there was nothing relating to the management, administration and control of Appellant or injunction sought.

It was also argued that the fact that the Appellant is a subsidiary of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, a property of the Federal Government does not make it a Federal Government Agency.
Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Vs Olloh (2002) 9 NWLR (pt 773) 475 @ 487 SC per Uwaifo, JSC thus:
“It does not imply that an establishment in which public officers are employed is a Federal Government body or an Agency of the Federal Government.”

That it is the duty of the Appellant to show that the Appellant is an organ established by law through which the Federal Government carries out its functions. See

Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Vs. Lagos State Government (2010) 5 NWLR (pt 1188) 570 @ 593. That Appellant had not demonstrated that.
Respondent therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed upon the reason raised.

RESOLUTION
The suit, the subject of the instant appeal is one that has suffered unnecessary delay based on the interpretative divergence of what the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court cum a state High Court is, as relating to “suits connected with or appertaining to mines and minerals including oil fields.”

The Plaintiff/Respondent herein had at the trial High Court claimed as follows:
“1. The sum of N9,131,300 (Nine Million, One Hundred and Thirty-one Thousand, Three Hundred Naira) only being fair and reasonable compensation due to the Edariese family from the Defendant for her entry and her activities on the family land.
2. Any other sum found to be fair and adequate compensation due to the Edariese Efedjamah family.
3. Interest on the said sum of N9,131,300 (Nine Million, One Hundred and Thirty one Thousand, Three Hundred Naira) or any adjudged amount at the rate of fifteen percent (15%) per annum from August 1995 until date of

Judgment and 10% ten percent per annum from the date of Judgment until total liquidation of the Judgment sum.
4. Any other suitable reliefs.

The parties in their respective Briefs of Argument as filed had clearly stood on the common but trite and settled position of the law that the jurisdiction of a Court to determine a case or matter is based on the claims of the (claimant) party as made.
It is not garnered from the Defendants Defence or postulations of what the plaintiff seeks or claims.
See KAYIL V YILBUK (2015) LPELR 24323 (SC); INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF ALGON VS RIOK (NIG) LTD (2018) LPELR 45289 (CA).
Indeed this settled position of the law was only recently as on 30th October, 2020 re-emphasized by this Court in Appeal No. CA/AS/218/2013 Technic Oil Field Support Vs. Engr. Felix Doghudje where His Lordship Abimbola Osarugue Obaseki-Adejumo, JCA in an appeal where the Respondent claimant had claimed as follows:
a) Six (6) months consultancy allowance from 1st March – 31st August, 2011 at the rate of N350,000.00 per month – 2,100,000.00 (Two Million One Hundred Thousand Naira)
b) Consultancy fee for Afiesere

NGC station matering & recirculation line contract – N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira).
c) Consultancy fee for Omoloro NGC Station metering & Circulation line Contract – N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira)
d) 0.5% consultancy fee for the Defendant OPI Int’l Nig. Ltd sub-contract in FYIP – USD 375,000.00 equivalent to N56,250,000.00 (Fifty-Six Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira).
e) Olomoro NGC station completion bonus – N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira).
f) Outstanding contract facilitation fee – N21,000.00 (Twenty-One Thousand Naira)
Total – N59,871,000.00
g) Damages of N4,000,000.00 (Four Million Naira)
And the Appellant as Defendant had brought a Notice of preliminary objection pursuant to Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) of the Constitution, 1999 on the ground that the lower Court lacked the substantive jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject matter of the case being one relating to or connected with labour, employment, and/or arising from alleged non-payment of wages, allowance, benefits and such other entitlement(s) as can be claimed by

an employee/worker or purported employee/worker.
The lower Court in her Ruling of 13th March, 2013 dismissed the preliminary objection of the Appellant. On Appeal, M.E. Okusare Esq., of Ukusare & Associates formulated a sole Issue for determination thus: Having regard to the provisions of Section 254(1) (a) & (k) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; was the Learned Trial Judge right in holding that the Respondent’s (claimant’s) claim falls within the jurisdiction of the Delta State High Court and outside the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
Obaseki Adejumo JCA, re-affirmed thus;
The parties are ad idem on the issue for determination in this appeal. The crucial question that needs answering in this appeal is whether or not the lower Court is vested with jurisdiction to entertain the matter?
It is a trite principle of law that in determining the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a matter/cause, the Court would resort to the writ of summons and claim of the Claimant. See; MARAFA & ORS v DAN ALHAJI & ORS (2019), per YAKUBU, JCA;
” … Furthermore, the law has been well

settled to the effect that in order for the Court to determine whether or not it possesses the required competence to determine the cause of action placed before it, the processes that were filed in order to activate its jurisdiction, which it needs to examine, are the writ of summons and the statement of claim only. And where the action was begun by originating summons, then it is the reliefs sought therein as well as the depositions contained in the affidavit in support of the originating summons, that would be examined in order to discern if the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the action. These are the only processes from which the facts giving rise to the cause of action can be gleaned for the Court to inquire into and determine whether it has the jurisdiction to determine the plaintiffs’ action. This is because, it is the plaintiff who invokes the constitutional right for a determination of his right and accordingly the activation of the judicial powers vested in the Courts by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. That is, it is the plaintiffs demand and not the defendant’s answer to that demand

that is a relevant issue for consideration at that stage. Therefore, ordinarily, it is the claim of the plaintiff only and not the defence, which the Court looks at to determine its jurisdiction. Adeyemi & Ors v. Opeyori (1976) LPELR – 171 (SC) @ 21-22; Attorney General, Oyo State v. Nigeria Labour Congress (2003) 8 NWLR (pt.821) 1; Akande & 2 Ors v. Busari Alagbe & Anor. (2001) FWLR (pt.38) 1352; Attorney General Federation v. Guardian Newspaper Ltd & 5 Ors (1999) 9 NWLR (pt.618) 187; Messers N. V. Scheep & Anor v. The MV ‘S Araz & Anor (2000) 15 NWLR (pt.691) 622; (2000) FWLR (pt.34) 556; National Electric Power Authority v. Atukpor (2001) FWLR (pt.20) 626; General Sani Abacha & 3 Ors v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (pt.660) 228; (2000) FWLR (pt.4) 557; Okulate & 4 Ors v. Awosanya & 2 Ors (2000) 2 NWLR (pt.646) 530; Senator Yakubu Lado & Ors v. Congress for Progressive Change & Ors (2011) LPELR- 8254 (SC) @ 35; Inakoju v. Adeleke & Ors (2007) 4 NWLR (pt.1025) 1; Jev v. Iyortyom (2014) 14 NWLR (pt.1428) 575.”
(PP. 46-48, PARAS. E-D). EE
The basis upon which a cause of action is founded is

usually gleaned from the statement of claim in IBE & ANOR v BONUM (NIG) LTD (2019) LPELR – 46452 (CA).
The Court held thus;
“The parties have correctly given the meaning ascribed to cause of action ……Cause of action is the factual basis or some factual situations a combination of which makes the matter in litigation an enforceable right or an actionable wrong. See IBRAHIM vs. OSIM (1988) 1 NNSC 1184 at 1194 (per Uwais, JSC as he then was) and TUKUR vs. GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) 517 at 581. In THOMAS vs. OLUFOSOYE (1986) 1 NWLR (PT 18) 669 at 682, the Supreme Court (per Obaseki, JSC) adopted the dictum of Pearson, LJ in DRUMMOND-JACKSON vs. BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1970) 1 WLR 688 at 696 wherein the phrase ‘reasonable cause of action’ was defined thus: ” … No exact paraphrase can be given, but I think means a: cause of action with some chance of success, when … only the allegations in the pleadings are considered) ….. In determining whether a reasonable cause of action is disclosed, the Court needs only to look at and examine the averments in the statement of claim. See

AJAYI vs. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR; ONDO STATE (1997) 5 NWLR (PT 503) 237, 7UP BOTTLING CO. LTD vs. ABIOLA [2001] 29 WRN 98 at 116, NICON INSURANCE CORP. vs. OLOWOFOYEKU (supra), ELEMA vs. NEPA (supra) and OTUBU v OMOTAYO (1995) 6 NWLR (PT 400) 247. The statement of claim must set out the legal right of the plaintiff and the obligation of the defendant. It must then go on to set out facts constituting infraction of the plaintiffs legal right or failure of defendant to fulfil his obligation in such a way that if there is no proper defence, the plaintiff will succeed in the relief or remedy he seeks: THOMAS vs. OLUFOSOYE (supra), EGBE vs. ADEFARASIN (supra) and RINCO CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD vs. VEEPEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED (2005) 9 MJSC 197 at 204. It is sufficient for a Court to hold that a cause of action is disclosed and is reasonable once the processes filed disclose some cause of action or some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, notwithstanding that the case is weak or not likely to succeed…..”
per OGAKWU, J.C.A (PP. 20-23, PARAS. C-F)
See also; CRESTWOOD HOLDINGS LTD v WEMA BANK PLC (2019) LPELR – 46821 (CA); ENEH v NDIC & ORS

(2018) LPELR, – 44902 (SC); MAHMUD v HAUSAWA & ORS (2018) LPELR – 46073 (CA); ZAKIRAI v MUHAMMAD & ORS (2017) LPELR – 42349 (SC).

From the claims of the Respondent herein, as plaintiff, accentuated by a holistic reading of the pleadings i.e the statement of claim, it is clear that the plaintiff was claiming compensation arising and based on an acquisition of their community and family property upon an agreed arrangement and valuation of the value of properties thereon based on an initial mutually agreed exercise of valuation and payment within a specified time frame.
The plaintiff averred at paragraphs 5,6, and 7 as follows:
The Defendant informed the Oviri-Olomu community of its oil exploration activities and expressed her intention to acquire the vast area of land at Evrue Bush where the oil deposits were discovered including the camp site and access road.
6. the said land was subsequently acquired by the Defendant who then introduced Uche Oti & Co., a firm of Estate Surveyors and Valuers, as her valuers for the purpose of assessing and ascertaining the quantum of compensation due and payable to the various persons and

families whose properties and/or farming rights were to be destroyed/affected by the Defendant’s operation and activities on the land.
7. The Plaintiff further avers that in accession to the request of the Defendant, he engaged the services of messrs Bellos of Bellos Associates, a firm of Estate Surveyors and Valuers to represent the Edariese Efedjamah family in the assessment and computation of compensation payable to the said family as a result of the devastation to be caused by the Defendant’s operations. (Underlining mine, for emphasis).
9. The Area of land belonging to the plaintiff’s family and other persons, or families and acquired by the Defendant as oil location camp site and the access road is as shown in survey plan No OTD/DT/LD/001/1999 filed along with this 3rd Amended Statement of claim.
The Plaintiff’s family portion of the area of land used the oil location site is 7.095 hectres. The plaintiff will rely on survey plan No. OTD/DT/LD/001/1999 prepared by surv. O.T. Dabiri, a licensed surveyor who was commissioned to carry out a survey of the area at this trial:
10 Plaintiff avers that after the field

assessment and valuation exercise, the Defendant appealed to the Edariese Efedjamah family and other families/persons affected by the Defendant’s operation/activities to allow her prepare the land for drilling operations/activities so as to avert the adverse effect of the approaching; rainy season. The Defendant also assured the affected families/individuals that as soon as the firm of Uche Oti & Co., submitted the valuation report, they would commence payment of the assessed compensation. The said families/individuals were further assured that payment would not in any event exceed the month of April 1995
11. On the strength of the Defendant’s assurance aforementioned, the Edariese Efedjamah family and the other families/persons affected by the Defendant’s operations/activities gave permission to the Defendant to commence work on the land. The Defendant moved her equipment and machines onto the land and bulldozed and destroyed all the economic and food crops/trees on the land including economic activities being carried on therein.
12. In April, 1995, the Defendant visited the Oviri-Olornu Community again this; time to express regret

that she was not in a financial position to honour her earlier promise to pay the assessed compensation within the period earlier agreed to. She accordingly pleaded for the time to be extended to July 1995.
13. Plaintiff avers that sometime in June 1995, and after all the properties on the Land have been bulldozed and destroyed, one Chief M. O. Uloho, the Managing Partner of Uloho & Co., a firm of Estate Surveyors and Valuers visited the Oviri-Olornu community and introduced his firm as having been commissioned by the Defendants in place of the firm of Uche Oti & Co., to carry out a fresh valuation exercise in respect of the destroyed properties and farming rights over the oil location sites, campsite and access road acquired by the Defendant.
14. The Plaintiff and another person and on behalf of the Executives of Oviri-Olomu Community Development Union immediately caused the law firm of D.I. Obukohwo & Co., to write to and protest to Uloho & Co., via a letter dated 27th June, 1995, informing them that the valuation exercise had long been carried but by Uche Oti & Co., commissioned by the Defendant to do so. A similar

letter of protest dated 26th June, 1995 was sent to the Defendant for which no response was given. The Plaintiff and his family refused to participate in such a new, futile and unfeasible exercise. Plaintiff will rely on the said letter at the trial of this action
8. In January 1995, the firm of Bellos & Bellos Associates working hand-in-hand with the firm of Uche Oti & Co. carried out the assessment and valuation exercises and a valuation report was duly prepared and submitted to the Defendant. A similar valuation report as it affected the Edariese Efedjamah family who donated power of attorney to him was also prepared by Bellos & Bellos Associates. Bellos & Bellos Associates has since closed shop in Warr. The office is no longer functional in Warri or within the jurisdiction of this Court but Mr. G. Efekodo who worked in the firm and hand in hand with the Principal Dr. Bello is still in Warri. His name is also reflected in the report. Plaintiff shall rely on the reports.
It is therefore very clear from the paragraphs of the 3rd Amended Statement of claim that the Plaintiff/Respondents herein were simply claiming compensation as and

owners for their farmlands and all economic crops and for actual and prospective loss of use of same and upon assessment as value as agreed upon to be carried out and which was indeed carried out by Estate surveyors and valuers appointed by the Appellant and acting in concert with the Respondent.
In the circumstance, therefore, the plenitude of the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delta State to adjudicate over the suit under its constitutionally endowned jurisdiction and power vide Section 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) cannot be faulted.
The Section 272 (1) provides as follows:
“Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court of a State shall have 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.”

The plaintiff’s claims here does not savour in the nature of damages caused to the plaintiff/respondents in the course of carrying out its activities and arising from mining operations and either for pollution or other damages resulting from mining operations in oil fields.
There was no suit for damages done to the plaintiffs by the Defendant in the course of carrying out its mining activities or operations such as pollution or noxious gases etc.
There was no claims raised on the challenge of any oil mining license or leasehold or operating license at the trial Court.
If it were so clearly, the Federal High Court would have been the Court seized of the exclusive jurisdiction. See Nkuma Vs. Odili (2006) 6 NWLR (pt 977) 587. Where Oguntade, JSC stated:
“I think that appellant’s counsel stretched beyond reasonable limit, the meaning to be ascribed to the expression “connected with or and appertaining to mines and minerals including oil fields” All the cases in which the Court of Appeal had decided that the provisions of both Decrees ousted the jurisdiction of a state High Court clearly touched on the issues of

compensation for pollution and damages resulting from mining operations and related matters and none was on compensation for owners of the land. …”
The Respondent’s herein, simply by the averments and claims made were only claiming compensation as owners of the land and based on prior agreement between them and the Appellant and using the Valuers Reports and promises as the template for the quantum and interest claimed.
The prospective damage and compensation sought thereon is to capture the losses occasioned or which may be occasioned outside the captured valuation of the Estate surveyor and valuers, the Appellant having reneged on the time promised for the payment of compensation to wit before the end of August, and in the face of the continuation of the Appellant’s act of destruction or clearance of the land without any payment.
The right to compensation or damages in the proprietory ownership of their land was guaranteed by Section 44 of the Constitution of Nigeria which provides as follow:
“44 (i) No moveable property or any interest in an immovable property shall be taken possession of compulsorily and

no right over or interest in any such property shall be acquired compulsorily in any part of Nigeria except in the manner and for the purposes prescribed by a law that amongst other things;
a) Requires the prompt payment of compensation therefore and
b) Gives to any person claiming such compensation right of access for the determination of his interest in the property and the amount of compensation to a Court of law or Tribunal or body having jurisdiction in that part of Nigeria.
In the event of the breach of the proprietory right of the Respondent as plaintiff as pleaded, and in view of the threatened further destruction of the proprietory rights, could he not vindicate this right in a Court with jurisdiction in the area?
Now Section 272 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic Nigeria, 1999 provides as follows:
Section 272 (1) – “subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court of a state shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence of 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.”
The Plenitude of powers and jurisdiction of the State High Court as conferred by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as afore said brings the claims of the Respondent herein under the dragnet of its jurisdiction.
The aforesaid jurisdiction is only limited or made subject to Section 251 which as far as is relevant for the purpose of this case, is Section 251 paragraph ‘n’ and ‘p’.
Paragraph ‘n’ provides thus “mines and minerals (including oil field, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas).
The suit and claims did not relate to oil fields oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas, as there was no claims made relating to such items or heads in any way.
It is the claims or reliefs sought that determine the jurisdiction of the Court.
See again Kayili V. Yilbuk (2015) LPELR 24323 SC (supra).
The other exception provided by Section 251 (Q) of the Constitution is

where the claim or relief sought appertains or relates to “p” – the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies.
The Appellant herein, the Nigerian Petroleum Development Company Ltd is a corporation. It was not shown by evidence that it was a Government Agency. Its certificate of incorporation or memorandum or Articles of Association were not produced at the trial Court for a view, nor any Address made thereon seriously.
Indeed, even if it were, the law is that the suit most relate to the Administration or the management and control of the said Agency of government.
The suit leading to this appeal did not relate to any administration, management or control but to a breach of contract and claim of compensation in form of special or quantified and quantifiable damages and interest thereon and compensation in the nature of general damages for unassessed destruction of proprietory interest and rights over land and hereditaments thereon.
Certainly, by the phraseology, of the Respondent’s statement of claim, and reliefs sought, it is obvious that he was mindful of the provisions

of Section 44 Subsection (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) which provides thus:
“Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the entire property in an control of all minerals oils and natural gas in, under or upon any land in Nigeria or in under or upon the territorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone of Government of the Federation and shall be managed in such manner as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.”
It is in the ownership of and management of the resources indicated aforesaid that the exclusivity of jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes arising therefrom or connected thereto is conferred on the Federal High Court.
The Appellant’s contention in paragraph 2.23 of page 8 of his Brief of Argument that from Nkuma Vs Odili supra, per Oguntade:
“It is clear that once compensation or damages being claimed is as a result of “mining operations, and related matters.”
“The jurisdiction of the State High Court is ousted” is a correct statement of the law. However where it is not, but only related to compensation by owners

of land for properties acquired or destroyed or loss of use of land, then it ceases to be damages arising from mining operations and related matters. In that wise, the constitutional jurisdiction of the state High Court comes to force.
That is the more reason why in Nkuma Vs Odili (supra) where the claim did not relate to mining, pollution etc, the Court held that it was simply a land dispute. The Court added that it could well have been a land dispute as to who was entitled to the compensation for a land to be used for farming, golfing or a football field.”
Indeed, I dare say, that the fact that compensation is claimed against an oil prospecting or mining company even if has started its operations, and for compensation for the acquisition of the land or value of properties destroyed of the owners will not divest the state High Court of jurisdiction.
The trial High Court was not wrong in assuming jurisdiction. Indeed, that Court was cautious to the extent that it said it had concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal High Court, which I say is a mooted trumpet in favour of the Federal High Court, which Court I think has only the

jurisdiction as conferred on it exclusively or jointly with other Courts as expressed in legislations such as the Electoral Act in some instances such as actions for false declaration in Affidavit of personal particulars of a candidate.
The Entry onto the Edariese Efedjah family land in total disregard of terms upon which an oil company may enter private land under an oil mining lease or license as pleaded in paragraph 18 of the statement of claim, even if it is contrary to a situation of acquisition of land on mutual terms, to warrant the case to be viewed as a simple case of claim of entitlement to compensation for land acquired on mutual terms as reasoned by the Appellant’s counsel at paragraph 2.25 of his Brief of Argument page 9 thereof, the said paragraph at least asserts that the Appellant was either in trespass or had not validly acquired legal possession of the site for oil mining or prospecting purposes.
That being the case, there was no oil mining operation or prospecting as yet in accordance to law. That is the more reason why the proceedings was not one for damages or compensation arising from oil mining or prospecting activities

or related matters, e.g Royalties, injuries from Sparks, explosions, industrial fires, pollution etc.
The statement of claim is crystal clear in all its paragraphs which does not assert consequential damages from operations in the nature of drilling or mining. It is the loss of site land and its hereditaments such as the topsoil for farming, fishing ponds, groves for juju shrines for the adherent members and forests/their food and Economic products of Timber etc that was in issue in the claim and reliefs sought for compensation.
I am clearly of the view that the case C.G.G. (Nig) Ltd Vs. Ogu (2005) ALL FWLR pt 261 per Tobi, JSC to the extent that it conflicts with the later decision of the Supreme Court in Nkuma Vs Odili (supra) (2006) a later decision of the apex Court will be taken to have been departed from.
See Shell Petroleum Development Company Ltd Vs Maxon (2001) FWLR (pt 47) 1030 at 1045 paragraph B-D where an earlier decision would be said to have been consigned to history in the face of a later decision on the same facts or similar facts. See also Osude v. Azodo (2017) 15 NWLR pt 1588, SC 21 at page 322 per Galinje, JSC (rtd) in

his contributory Judgment thus:
“The decision in Lokpobiri v Ogola (supra was delivered after the decision inPDP v. Sylva(supra) and Kakih vs. PDP.
This Court part correct from correcting the defects in the decisions of the lower Court has the onerous responsibility of correcting itself; since it is the apex Court and there is no other Court to which its errors can be submitted for correction.
It follows, therefore, that where its later decisions are at variance with its previous decisions, it means that the previous decision has been overruled to the extent of the variation. Learned Counsel for the Respondents in this appeal seems to have paid more attention to the decision in Lokpobiri v. Ogola (Supra).
This I think is a wrong posture and ought to be discouraged.
The decision in Lokpobiri v. Ogola is very clear and that is the Federal High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the FCT and the Federal High Court in respect of matters provided for under Section 87 (9) of the Electoral Act, 2010.”
Pats Achologu, JCA stated in SPD Co. Ltd vs Maxon (supra) thus:
“This Court had decided in C.G.C (Nig) Ltd V. Asagbara

following Barry V. Eri (supra) that in an action arising from the activities or operations of companies engaged in these businesses, the Federal High Court is the competent Court to assume jurisdiction. The decision of this Court in Shell Vs Isaiah (supra) has now been consigned to history. Besides it is an older Judgment thanBarry Vs Eric (supra). It has therefore been jettisoned.
It seems to me that the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Barry Vs. Eric and C.G.C. V. Asagbara is more consistent with the law in this area than the Shell Vs Isaiah case. The Rivers State High Court lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate here. Even if the facts of this case on appeal are similar to a large extent with the case ofC.G.G. (Nig) Ltd V. Ogu (2005) ALL FWLR (pt 261) supra, which I dare say is not true; as contrary to the assertion, there was no wrongful and reckless acts of breaking into the land alleged in this matter on appeal.
Secondly, even if there was, by the principle of stare decisis or precedent this Court is bound by the later decision in Nkuma Vs Odili supra; which had clearly departed from the earlier position of the Court in 2005.

See Osunde vs Azodo (supra) and Nkuma vs Odili (supra).
What is more, it is a binding later decision of the apex Court which facts are on all fours with the instant matter on appeal and which ratio therein is binding and had departed from and overruled the earlier decision of 2005 by implication.
There is no doubt that the decisions cited by the Appellant’s counsel may be good case law authorities but which are in applicable to the facts of this case, as relating the claims and reliefs sought. The cases merely espouse the provisions of the Constitution as relating the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as relating mining, and mineral oil, oil fields, geological surveys and natural gas as far as actions relating to them is concerned.
To rack in the provisions of Section 7(1) n and p of the Federal High Court Act and Section 251 (1) (n) (p) as done by the Appellant’s learned counsel does not defeat the jurisdiction of the state High Court as sought.
The Section 2 of the Federal High Court (Amendment) Act substituting a new Section 7(1) for the Section 7 and which provides as follows:

“2. For Section 7 of the Principal Act, there shall be substituted the following new section, that is:
7(1) the Court shall to the exclusion of any other Court have original jurisdiction to try civil causes and matters connected with or pertaining to (p) mines and minerals, including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas.”
As stated earlier, the suit or proceedings was unrelated to the matters and intendment of the above provisions.
There was no injury arising from exploration activities as in the nature of migration of bees from bees farm in Barry Vs Eric. A migration leading to loss which was caused as a result of the mining activities. It was not based on breach of contract to protect the Bees in the farm or compensation for the loss of the farm, trees and Bush housing the Bees to bring the action within the jurisdiction of the state High Court. The decision in Barry was on its peculiar facts, though now departed from.
I am in no wise impressed by the Appellant’s posture and technical resort to the definition of compensation and damages. The Respondent’s counter position and thoughts on same are more persuasive and real.

The lower Court, was right when it held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case.
It must be state that the Federal High Court, per Buba, J in his Ruling on 29-6-2010 at page 23 of the Record of Appeal had held thus:
“With these in mind, I am more satisfied that the claim for compensation due to Edariese family from the defendant as fair and adequate compensation and the interest claimed is not within the jurisdiction of this Court (Federal High Court).”
The learned trial High Court Judge of Delta State in his Ruling now in appeal had concluded thus:
“It is therefore, my position that this claim can be entertained by this Court State High Court and that the Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal High Court and has jurisdiction over the subject matter being compensation for land involving NPDC and claimant as land owner.
To the extent that the Court had jurisdiction, I am satisfied that, that is the position of the law.”
However, the Federal High Court having held that it lacked jurisdiction and had transferred the matter to the High Court of the state, the said state High Court had

no appellate jurisdiction to review same and to hold that the said other Court had jurisdiction for that is the import of holding that they have concurrent jurisdiction.
That a Court shall not be covetous or hungry for jurisdiction does not mean that it can sit on appeal over Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction for that is the implication of the pronouncement made in respect of the Ruling of Buba, J., of the Federal High Court which was not made by that Court.
To that extent, that comment or opinion is an obiter and non-binding as it did not arise from the parties case.
The Appeal therefore, on the whole, has no merit.
The High Court of Delta State, sitting at the Ughievwem Judicial Division at Otu-Jeremi shall proceed with the hearing of the suit No. HCG/34/95 and expeditiously, this interlocutory appeal having unduly delayed the hearing of the suit.

I reason that this is such a case that a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court may be taken in the hearing of the suit and a Ruling thereon delivered before the final judgment or at the final judgment as the issue of jurisdiction could be raised and taken at any stage of

the proceedings. Ruling on it could be reserved, particularly as herein that it is trite and recondite.

A toss too and fro as in what the lower (High Court of Delta State) called an “Israeli Journey” is not good for our quest for speedy dispensation of justice, in the clarity of the jurisdictional provisions of the laws. The Courts should not allow litigants to use the law unfairly in delaying justice administration. A 1995 case that was transferred to the lower Court on 24th June, 2011 and had a Ruling there on delivered on 21th October, 2014.

A costs of N10,000 was awarded to the Respondent and the Appellant’s learned counsel complains that it was in error; as it was the Court that raised the issue of jurisdiction and not the Appellant by any preliminary objection.

This was so stated in address of counsel, though there is no appeal against that aspect of the Ruling that the application was by way of preliminary objection. That portion cannot be set aside.

It is presumed to be so, as no part of a judgment may be altered except pursuant to and in accordance to the law can it be challenged. The Record of Appeal has not been

challenged, as by law ordained, in any way. The contention goes to no issue and is jettisoned, therefore.

On the whole, the appeal is dismissed and in consequence the Ruling delivered on 24th October, 2014 in suit No HCG/34/95 inclusive of the order awarding a cost of N10,000 against the Appellant herein in favour of the Respondent is therefore affirmed in its entirety.

A cost of N300,000 only is awarded in favour of the Respondent against the Appellant for the prosecution of this appeal.

AYOBODE OLUJIMI LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A.: I agree.

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity to read in advance the lead Judgment of my learned brother, MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, JCA, and I am entirely in agreement with him on the reasoning and conclusion reached.

Appearances:

Irikefe Ovwighorienta Esq. For Appellant(s)

Thompson Okpoko & Partners, Adane Chambers For Respondent(s)