GHANA & ORS v. SPDC (NIG) LTD (2021)

GHANA & ORS v. SPDC (NIG) LTD

(2021)LCN/14950(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Monday, January 04, 2021

CA/PH/2/2017

RATIO

JURISDICTION: IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION OF COURT

The jurisdiction of a Court is a fundamental issue in any adjudication. Indeed it has been described as the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a Court of law. See UTIH V. ONOYIVWE (1991)1 NWLR (PT.166)166. The law is settled that where a Court lacks jurisdiction in any matter before it that Court cannot make any coercive order in the matter. See AKINBOBOLA V. PLISSON FISKO NIG. LTD (1991) 1 SCNJ 129. PER AKEJU, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: WHAT DETERMINES JURISDICTION OF COURTS

The Courts that are concerned in this matter are set up under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and each of them is assigned with jurisdiction under that constitution. It is therefore the claim of the plaintiff that determines which Court will hear the matter. See ADETAYO V. ADEMOLA (2010) 15 NWLR (PT.1215) 169. PER AKEJU, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Isaiah Olufemi Akeju Justice of the Court of Appeal

Tunde Oyebanji Awotoye Justice of the Court of Appeal

Cordelia Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

HON. THOMAS GHANA 2. MR. JOHN AKIEFA 3. MRS. FAITH DANIEL 4. MR. TOMA ODIBOWEI 5. MR. HOLIDAY ODONI (For Themselves And On Behalf Of Aghoro 1 Community) APPELANT(S)

And

SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED RESPONDENT(S)

SAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Bayelsa State, contained in the Ruling delivered on 3rd November, 2016 in suit No. EHC/33/2015 in which suit the appellants as the claimants had through the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 18/12/15 as subsequently amended sought the following reliefs:-
1. An Order for the defendant to pay Aghoro 1 Community the sum of N160,250,000.00 only being the Gross monthly Basic Salary of 5 Security Guards for 8 years, 4 months for the period 21st October, 1999 to 27th February, 2008.
2. A Declaration that the Defendant Pipeline, Trans Ramos Pipeline from Pillar No. TRPL70-94 covers an area of 12 KM.
3. An Order for the Defendant to pay Aghoro 1 Community the amount for the 8 KM contract sum of a monthly sum of N4,635,600.00 beginning from the month of January, 2012 to the time of filing this suit for work done and totaling N217,873,200.00.
4. Interest of 10% per month on such moneys from judgment till final liquidation.

The Respondent as the Defendant filed a Statement of Defence on 9th March, 2016 but

same was later regularised. The Defendant denied part of the averments in the statement of claim while some of the facts alleged were admitted.

Meanwhile in the course of hearing a motion for joinder placed before the Court by way of the motion on notice filed by the Claimants/Applicants on 15th June, 2016 the learned trial Judge at the proceedings of 1st day of July, 2016 (page 305 of the Record of Appeal) held as follows:
“Having regard to the Claimants Claim which is for payment of basic salaries of persons, I order that both counsel in the substantive matter address the Court on the issue of jurisdiction. Accordingly, they are to file written addresses within the next ten days and adopt same in open Court on Monday, 18th July, 2016.”

Thus the issue of jurisdiction was raised suo motu by the lower Court and called for written addresses by the counsel to the parties and they did so. The two learned counsel also adopted their respective arguments in their written submissions.

In his Ruling delivered on 3/11/2016 (pages 309 to 316 of the Record of Appeal) the learned trial Judge stated at page 311 that the short issue was

whether the State High Court can assume jurisdiction over the claimants claims as constituted. The learned Judge then reviewed the submissions of counsel and arrived at the conclusion that the lower Court did not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the reliefs sought by the claimants consequent upon which the Court struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

The Appellants who were dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court filed their Notice and Grounds of Appeal against the decision on 15th November, 2016 with two grounds of appeal, and the Appellants’ Brief of Argument was prepared by Oyinprebi K. Daniel of counsel and filed on 14th February, 2017. The Respondent’s Brief Argument was settled by Franklin Peterside of counsel and filed on 1st June, 2020 but deemed on 16/6/2020.

From the grounds of appeal, the Appellants raised the following issues for determination:-
1. Was the trial Court right on holding that Relief 1 of the Appellants Statement of Claim was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court thereby robbing the trial Court of jurisdiction to hear the Appellants’ suit.

Was the trial Court right in holding that Relief 2 of the Appellants Statement of Claim was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court thereby robbing the trial Court of jurisdiction to hear the Appellants’ suit.As set down by the Respondent, the issues for determination in this appeal are:
1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have held that relief 1 of the Appellants’ Statement of Claim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have held that relief 2 of the Appellants’ Statement of Claim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.The parties have formulated issues that are virtually the same for determination of the appeal, the two issues formulated by the Appellants are adopted for the purpose of this Judgment.

On his first issue, the learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the trial Court was not right in holding that the first relief of the Appellants was within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court exclusively. The learned counsel submitted that

it is the claim of the claimant that determines the jurisdiction of Court in any particular matter; IBAFON CO. LTD V. NIGERIAN PORTS PLC (2000) 8 NWLR (PT.667) 86. It was further submitted that the jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the existing law at the time the cause of action in dispute arose and not the law at the time the Court’s jurisdiction was invoked; GOVERNOR OF OYO STATE V. OBA OLOLADE FOLAYAN (1995) NWLR (PT. 413) 292.

The learned counsel argued that as at the time the cause of action in this case arose (1999-2008) the National Industrial Court had not been granted exclusive jurisdiction and Section 254 C(1)K found its way into the Constitution when the legislature in Nigeria enacted the Third Alteration Act, 2010 and the trial Court could not have applied that Section in deciding that the 1st Relief of the Appellant’s Claim is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court.

On this same issue which the Respondent also set as the first issue, the learned counsel for Respondent submitted that a Court is competent and has jurisdiction to adjudicate over a particular matter when the Court is

properly constituted as regards number and qualification of members of the Court, the subject matter of the action is within the jurisdiction of the Court, and the case has been initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of all conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction; MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; AJAO V. ALAO (1986) 5 NWLR (PT. 45) 802; PURECHEM INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. SPICA SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED (2012) 3 NWLR 348. Any defect in competence or failure to fulfill any requirement for the proper commencement of an action becomes fatal and renders the process or proceedings incompetent, null and void, so contended the learned counsel.

The learned counsel submitted that it is the plaintiff’s or claimant’s claim that determine the jurisdiction of the Court and all the facts constituting the claim can only be determined from the writ of summons and the Statement of Claim; MULTI PURPOSE VENTURE LTD V. A.G. RIVERS STATE (PT.522) 642 (incomplete); KWARA STATE V. WARAH (1995) 7 NWLR (PT.405) 120.

It was submitted that the relief 1 of the Appellants’ Claim in this case relates to, or fall under the subject

matter jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court being claim arising from payment or non payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits, or other entitlement of worker as stipulated under Paragraph K of Section 254 C(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Third Alteration) Act, 2010; P.&.C.H.S. CO. LTD V. MIGFO (NIG.) LTD (2012) 18 NWLR (PT.1333) 555; S.C.C. NIG. LTD V. SEDI (2013) 1 NWLR (PT.1335) 230.

On the argument that the cause of action in this case accrued before Section 254 c(1) of Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 came into being and should therefore not apply as argued by the Appellants, the learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that once a statute is created taking away the jurisdiction of the Court, the jurisdiction of the Court automatically ceases and the Court ceases to have jurisdiction over such matters whether the cause of action accrued before or after the statute came into force; SHELL PET. DEV. CO. (NIG.) LTD V. ISAIAH (2001) 11 NWLR (PT. 723) 168; COCA COLA (NIG.) LTD V. AKINSANYA (2013) 18 NWLR (PT.1386) 255; JOHN V. IGBO ETITI LGA

(2013) 7 NWLR (PT.1352)1.
Counsel urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Respondent.

I had earlier in this judgment stated the claim of the Claimants/Appellants, the first leg of which is for an amount of N160,250,000.00 gross monthly basic salary of 5 security guards for 8 years 4 months while the second Relief is for a declaration that the Defendant Trans Ramos Pipeline from Pillar No5 TRPL 70 – 94 covers an area of 12 KM.

The lower Court held that this second relief falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court being a relief that relates to, arises from or in connection with laying of Pipeline and in connection directly with oil mining or prospecting activities.

On the second issue formulated by the Appellants in this appeal the learned counsel for Appellants contended that the lower Court failed to properly evaluate all the facts of the case as stated in the writ of summons and statement of claim. He submitted that jurisdiction is determined by the originating processes of the Claimant; ORTHORPAEDIC HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT BOARD V. GARBA (2002) 14 NWLR (PT. 788) 538. It was submitted that the

case of the Appellants does not fall within the perimeter of Section 251(1)(n) of the 1999 Constitution but a case about the interpretation of an agreement between the parties; NIGERIAN AGIP OIL COMPANY LTD V. KEMMER (2001) 8 NWLR (PT. 716) 506. It was submitted that the lower Court was divested of jurisdiction; ONUORAH V. K.P.R.C. LTD (2005) 6 NWLR (PT. 921) 395.

The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that it is the Claim of the Plaintiffs that determines the jurisdiction of the Court; MULTI PURPOSE VENTURE LTD V. A.G. RIVERS STATE (1997) 9 NWLR (PT. 522) 642; KWARA STATE V. WARAH (1995) 7 NWLR (PT. 405)120; ONUORAH V. K.P.R.C. LTD (2005) 6 NWLR (PT. 921) 393. It was further submitted that the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter where the claim of the plaintiff comes within the provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended); BARRY V. ERIC (1998) 8 NWLR (PT.565) 404; SPDC V. MAXON (2001)9 NWLR (PT. 719) 541; SPDC V. ISAIAH (2001) 11 NWLR (PT.723)168.

The learned counsel urged that this issue be resolved in favour of the Respondent.

It is clear that the issues raised and argued by the two parties concern the jurisdiction of the High Court of Rivers State as opposed to those of the National Industrial Court and the Federal High Court.

The 1st relief claimed by the Appellants is well captured by the lower Court at page 313 of record of appeal when the learned trial judge stated that;
“Relief 1 of the claim on the writ

and amended statement of claim is for money; being the gross monthly basic salaries and allowances of five security guards and certainly not for breach of any contract for supply of security guards as contended by learned counsel.”
The learned trial Judge applied Section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and found that the provision thereof covers the 1st Relief of the Appellants. His Lordship of the lower Court is undoubtedly correct in view of the provision of the clause K of that Section 254 C (i) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010 which has vested jurisdiction in the National Industrial Court to the exclusion of any other Court in civil cases and matters….
“K: Relating to or connected disputes arising from payment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances, benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, Worker, Political or Public Officer holder, Judicial Officer or any Public Servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental thereto.”
In the same vein, the learned Judge relied on Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

and held that the proper Court to hear and determine the Relief 2 of the Appellants’ Claim which relates to the laying of Oil Pipeline and Oil Mining activities is the Federal High Court and definitely not the High Court of Bayelsa State.
For those reasons well articulated by the learned trial Judge as well as his proper application of the relevant laws, I am of the view that the lower Court correctly declined jurisdiction with respect to reliefs 1 and 2 of the Claims of the Appellants and I so hold.
This appeal is therefore lacking in merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
The Appellants shall pay costs of N50,000.00 to the Respondent.

TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A.: I agree.

CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.: I was afforded the opportunity of reading the lead judgment prepared and delivered by my learned brother, ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU, JCA.

I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed by me. I abide by the consequential orders of costs as made in the lead judgment.

Appearances:

K. DANIEL, ESQ., with him, BLESSING MORKA, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

I. OKWAKPAM For Respondent(s)