CAMERON OFFSHORE SYSTEM (NIG) LTD v. AKWA IBOM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY & ANOR (2021)

CAMERON OFFSHORE SYSTEM (NIG) LTD v. AKWA IBOM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY & ANOR

(2021)LCN/15033(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021

CA/C/98/2020

RATIO

APPLICATION: PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI

Generally, to obtain an order of certiorari, two applications are necessary. The first is an application for leave of the Court to apply for the order, which is made exparte to the Judge and must be supported by a statement setting out the name and description of the applicant and the relief and grounds on which it is sought, and an affidavit verifying the facts relied on. The second application is for the order of certiorari itself and it is made on notice to other parties after the leave sought in the first has been granted.

Order 40 Rules 5 (1) and (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 of the Akwa Ibom State has alluded to the above requirement wherein it provides as follows:-
“40 (1) An application of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari shall be made by way of an application for judicial review in accordance with the provision of this order.
5(i) When leave has been granted the application shall be made by motion or by originating summons.
(2) The notice of motion or summon shall be served on all persons directly affected and where it relates to any proceedings before a Judge and the object of the application is either to compel the Judge or an officer of the Court to do any act in relation to the proceedings, or to quash them or any order made therein, the notice or summons shall also be served on the clerk or registrar of the Court.
(3) Unless the Judge granting has otherwise directed, there shall be at least 7 days between the service of the notice of motion or summons and the day named therein for hearing.
(4) A motion shall be entered for hearing within 14 days after the grant of the leave.
(5) An affidavit giving the names and addresses of… and places and date of service on all persons who have been served with the notice of motion or summons shall be filed before the motion or summon is entered for hearing and if any person who ought to be served under this Rule has not been served, the affidavit shall state that fact and the reason for it and the affidavit shall be before the Judge on the hearing of the motion or summons.” PER MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
JUDICIAL REVIEW: PRINCIPLE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

As posited that judicial review is based on a fundamental principle that is inherent in our legal system, which is that the power can be validly exercised only within their time limits. It is thus, a mechanism for keeping public authorities within due bounds and for upholding the rule of law. Instead of substituting its decision for that of some other body as it happens on appeal, the Court on review is concerned only with the question whether the act or order being challenged should be allowed to stand or not. In effect, the Court is concerned with the legality and not the merit of the decision or the acts of the public authority. See AMADI V. ACHO (2005) 12 NWLR (prt 939) 386, NIGERIAN ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL PRACTICE PHARMACITS EMPLOYERS (NAGPPE) V. PHARMACIST COUNCIL OF NIGERIA & ORS (2013) LPELR – 21834 (CA) and ACB V. NWAIGWE (2011)7 NWLR (prt 1246) 380. PER MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.
WRITS: APPLICATION OF PREROGATIVE WRITS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

The law is that prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition apply only against the acts and decisions of bodies or persons exercising administrative or judicial quasi-judicial authority affecting the rights of people which makes it mandatory for them to act fairly and in respect of acts performed or decisions taken by them in that capacity. They do not apply or lie against executive or legislative acts, or mere administrative acts because such acts are not performed in accordance with the rules of fair hearing. See MAGIT V. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, MAKURDI (2005)19 NWLR (prt 959) 21 MANUWA V. NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL (2013) 2 NWLR (prt 1337)1 and ST. MICHEAL PHARMACETICAL LTD V. MOORE ASSOCIATES LTD & ANOR (2015) LPELR – 24593 (CA). PER MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

MOTION: REQUIREMENT FOR A MOTION TO BE VALID

It is also settled that motion generally must be supported by affidavit otherwise the application will be bare and naked. PER MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Mojeed Adekunle Owoade Justice of the Court of Appeal

James Shehu Abiriyi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

CAMERON OFFSHORE SYSTEM NIGERIA LIMITED APPELANT(S)

And

1. AKWA IBOM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY 2. THE JUDGE REVENUE COURT OF UYO ZONE RESPONDENT(S)

MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the ruling of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State sitting in Uyo delivered on the 19th of November, 2019 dismissing the applicant’s application.

The applicant (now appellant) through a motion on notice filed on 30/4/2019 and brought pursuant to Order 40 Rule 5 (1) & (2) of the Akwa Ibom State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2009 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court prayed the lower Court for the following:
An Order of Certiorari quashing charge NO REU/1133C/2018 – Akwa Ibom Environmental Protection and Water Management Agency v. Cameron Offshore System Nigeria Limited and All other proceedings already undertaken in the manner pursuant to the charge.

Upon service of the motion papers on the respondents, the 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit in opposition. After considering the affidavit evidence, learned trial Chief Judge held inter alia that notwithstanding, the amount involved the charge preferred against the applicant is within the jurisdiction of the State Revenue Court. He concluded at page 79 of the record of appeal thus:-

“There is therefore no basic (sic) for the review of the procedure before the Revenue Court with regard to the charge against the applicant. This application lacks merit. The applicant is not entitled to the relief sought.
I hereby order that this motion be and is hereby dismissed.”

Dissatisfied, appellant appealed to this Court through a notice of appeal filed on 16/01/2020. The said notice of appeal at page 80 – 83 of the record of appeal contains two grounds of appeal. Briefs of argument were accordingly filed and exchanged by the appellant and the 1st respondent as the 2nd respondent did not up to the expiration of time allowed file any brief of argument.

Distilled from the two grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant formulated a sole issue for the determination of the appeal as follows: –
Whether in the circumstances of this case the lower Court was right when the Court held that the order of certiorari was not available to the appellant.

Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent adopts the sole issue formulated by the appellant. At the oral hearing of the appeal on 21/1/2021, Tonye

Krukrubo Esq. adopted and relied on the appellant’s brief of argument filed on 28/7/2020 but deemed as properly filed together with appellant’s reply brief filed on 20/1/2021 but deemed as properly filed on 21/1/2021 in urging this Court to allow the appeal. O. I. Briggs, Esq. adopted and relied on the 1st respondent’s brief of argument in urging this Court to dismiss the appeal.

Arguing the sole issue on the part of the appellant, learned counsel contended that the appellant is not engaged in petroleum refining & petroleum producing and petroleum products manufacturing to bring it under the contemplation of Section 7 (h) and 36 Schedule II category A (i) of the Akwa Ibom State Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Law as one of the companies liable to pay effluent (pollution) fee and thus, the law is not applicable to the appellant.

Still in contention, Counsel argued that the appellant’s operational bases and where it provides services being at offshore locations in an area which is within the Exclusive Economic Zone are in the territorial waters of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The jurisdiction to try

persons (corporate or natural) for offences relating to environmental fees for operation within the oil and gas industry in area designated as Exclusive Economic Zone of Nigeria is vested in the Federal High Court and therefore, Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State lacks the jurisdiction over the appellant.

Counsel submitted further that the Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State established by the Revenue Court Law, Cap. 111, Laws of Akwa Ibom State 2000, presided over by Chief Magistrate can only impose a fine not exceeding thirty thousand Naira or by imprisonment not exceeding five years and the amount over which the appellant is been prosecuted is in excess of the Court’s jurisdiction. He cited and relied on Sections 34, 35 and 37 (1) (4) and (5) of the Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Law of Akwa Ibom State. And since the Revenue Court cannot impose any punishment greater than that prescribed under the Magistrate Court Law, the Revenue Court presided over by the 2nd respondent lacks the jurisdiction over charge No. REU/1133C/2018.

In his response, learned Counsel to the respondent referred copiously to Section 4 of the Akwa Ibom Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Law Cap. 47 Laws of Akwa Ibom State in submitting that the Revenue Court created under the law is vested with the jurisdiction in causes or matters relating to collection of any fees rates, levies and taxes by whatever name called and impose under any law in force in Akwa Ibom State.

Counsel also submitted that the presiding officer of the Revenue Court assume the statute of judge in view of the peculiarity of the Revenue Court and thereby making it distinct from the regular Courts. Thus, the 2nd respondent is competent to preside over cases irrespective of the amount of the revenue involved pursuant to Section 4 (2) (e) and 3 of the extant law.

14 days after the grant of the leave.
(5) An affidavit giving the names and addresses of… and places and date of service on all persons who have been served with the notice of motion or summons shall be filed before the motion or summon is entered for hearing and if any person who ought to be served under this Rule has not been served, the affidavit shall state that fact and the reason for it and the affidavit shall be before the Judge on the hearing of the motion or summons.”
The appellant was granted leave pursuant to the above rule and after hearing the motion on notice, the learned trial Chief Judge found the application unmeritorious and accordingly dismissed same.
As posited that judicial review is based on a fundamental principle that is inherent in our legal system, which is that the power can be validly exercised only within their time limits. It is thus, a mechanism for keeping public authorities within due bounds and for upholding the rule of law. Instead of substituting its decision for that of some other body as it happens on appeal, the Court on review is concerned only with the question whether the act or order

being challenged should be allowed to stand or not. In effect, the Court is concerned with the legality and not the merit of the decision or the acts of the public authority. See AMADI V. ACHO (2005) 12 NWLR (prt 939) 386, NIGERIAN ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL PRACTICE PHARMACITS EMPLOYERS (NAGPPE) V. PHARMACIST COUNCIL OF NIGERIA & ORS (2013) LPELR – 21834 (CA) and ACB V. NWAIGWE (2011)7 NWLR (prt 1246) 380.
The law is that prerogative writs of certiorari and prohibition apply only against the acts and decisions of bodies or persons exercising administrative or judicial quasi-judicial authority affecting the rights of people which makes it mandatory for them to act fairly and in respect of acts performed or decisions taken by them in that capacity. They do not apply or lie against executive or legislative acts, or mere administrative acts because such acts are not performed in accordance with the rules of fair hearing. See MAGIT V. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, MAKURDI (2005)19 NWLR (prt 959) 21 MANUWA V. NATIONAL JUDICIAL COUNCIL (2013) 2 NWLR (prt 1337)1 and ST. MICHEAL PHARMACETICAL LTD V. MOORE ASSOCIATES LTD & ANOR (2015) LPELR – 24593 (CA).

It is also settled that motion generally must be supported by affidavit otherwise the application will be bare and naked. The appellant in the present case had averred in the affidavit in support of the said motion before the trial Court that its operational bases are located at offshore locations not within the territorial jurisdiction of Akwa Ibom State and hence outside the contemplation of the extant law. And that the 2nd respondent is not competent to determine the appellant’s liability which is far above his jurisdictional limit.

The starting point is to determine the territorial boundary of the appellant’s operation as well as the application of the extant law that is, the Akwa Ibom Environmental Protection & Waste Management Agency. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit in support of the application, the appellant explicitly stated its operational base as follows:-
10. I was informed by Oluwayemisi Akinjide Akosile (a Senior Attorney with the applicant) on 27 September, 2017 via a telephone conversation and I … believe her that:-
(a) The applicant does not have any facility

within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court (ie in Akwa Ibom State), the applicant only has contracts with clients to provide wellhead maintenance and installation services offshore of Akwa Ibom State.
(b) The applicant’s field service support to clients covers clients’ platform locations off the shore of Akwa Ibom State, including Ugit, Utue, Usari, Edop, Oso, Ekpe, Asabo Inim, Idoho and Asasa fields.
(c) The applicant’s clients’ operational bases where the applicant provides services are located at offshore locations in an area which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Akwa Ibom State Government. Rather, they said locations are within the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Territorial Waters of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which are exclusively under the control and management of the Federal Government of Nigeria.
(d) The operations of the applicant’s clients to whom the applicant provides services are being carried on within the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Territorial Waters of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and these areas are subject to the control and supervision of the Federal Government

of Nigeria. These areas are also exclusively within the rights and powers of the Federal Government to impose and collect fees thereon including effluent; pollution and/or any other environment related fees from persons or entities operating within such designated areas.
(e) The wellhead maintenance and installation services which the applicant provide to its clients do not generate any discharge, effluent or waste of any description.
(f) Furthermore, the applicant is not within the contemplation of Schedule 11 Category A (i) of the Environment Protection and Waste Management Agency Law as an entity liable to pay pollution discharge fee to the Government of Akwa Ibom State as the applicant is not into “petroleum Refining & Petroleum Producing and petroleum product manufacturing.”

In reacting to the above, 1st respondent averred in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit thus:-
6. The applicant’s paragraph 10 in its entity is denied. In further answer to the above, 1st respondent state that the averments contained in the aforesaid paragraph is a defence being a matter of evidence that can be raised during trial

and not a threshold issue to be decided at this stage.
7. 1st Respondent further avers that applicant in the course of carrying out its services to its various clients operates from Akwa Ibom State by driving their cars and uses generators which fall within the contemplation of “Effluent discharge” and also constitute waste which bothers on the Akwa Ibom State environment.”

Gleaning from the above, two issues are for consideration, namely; the application of the Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Law to the Appellant’s field of operation and the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to adjudicate over the quantum of the allegation against the appellant.
The provisions of Sections 25 – 35 of the Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Act, Cap. 47 Laws of Akwa Ibom State, 2000 contains myriads of Environmental standards while Schedule 11 thereof, listed the pollution Discharge fees. The criminal summons issued against the appellant was that it defaulted in paying pollution fees to the tune of N9,000,000.00 (Nine Million Naira) contrary

to Section 34 and 35 and punishable under Sections 37 (1) (4) and (5) of the Akwa Ibom State Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Law, Cap. 47, Laws of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, 2000.
The provisions of Sections 34 and 35 of the law which the appellant allegedly contravened read as follows: –
“34. No person shall establish petrol stations, gas plant or other petroleum related activities without adherence to approved environmental standards.
35. No person shall engage in any form of petroleum exploration or exploitation activities which cause pollution of the environment through spillage.”
From the content of the charge, the appellant was clearly not charged with infractions of Sections 34 and 35 aforesaid but for failure to pay pollution fees contemplated in Schedule II of the law. It is therefore imperative to set down the activities that attract fees under Schedule II to the law. Category A of Schedule II listed the followings:-
(i) Petroleum refineries & petroleum producing and petroleum products manufacturing companies.
(ii) Asphalts and Bitumen producing Industries
(iii) Rubber/Tyres manufacturing Industries.
(iv) Iron, steel, other metals industries,
(v) Marbles, Terrazzo Industries.
(vi) Glass Industries.
(vii) Cable electronics Manufacturing Industries.”

I have earlier reproduced paragraph 7 of the 1st respondent’s counter affidavit which categorically stated the basis of the claim against the appellant at the Revenue Court to the effect that the appellant in the course of carrying out its activities uses generators and cars capable effluent discharge. Effluent discharge is a liquid waste other than waste from kitchens or toilet, surface water or domestic sewage. I therefore cannot but agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant’s activities which is providing support service to companies engaged in oil exploration and production is outside the purview of Schedule II Category A (i) of the Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Law of Akwa Ibom State.

Learned trial Chief Judge was hesitant on the issue as to the liability of the appellant to pay the pollution as contained in the extant law when he said at page 78 of the record of appeal that:-

“I am not in a position to evaluate or resolve the issues in this regard, this is so because a procedure for judicial review by way of certiorari is not connected with the merit of the case but with legality of the proceedings usually whether the lower tribunal has jurisdiction.”

There are basically four conditions on any one of which the order of certiorari may be granted and they are: –
(a) Lack of jurisdiction;
(b) Breach of rules of natural justice,
(c) Error of law on the face of the records, and
(d) Decision obtained by fraud or collusion.
It is of the utmost importance that the Court should act to prevent an injustice being done when the remedy sought is within its powers to grant. The High Court has an inherent power, unfettered by statute to control inferior tribunals in a supervisory capacity. Such control is by means of certiorari to keep the inferior tribunal within the law within bounds and within such jurisdiction as the legislature deem fit to confer upon it. See AGWUEGBO V. KAGOMA (2000)14 NWLR (prt 678) 252 and STATE V. LAWAL (2013) 7 NWLR (prt 1354) 565. In the instant case, the legislature did not impose obligation on the appellant activities and thus not within the bounds of the Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State.

The next germane issue relates to area of coverage of the said Environmental Protection and Waste Management Law. By virtue of Section 48 of the Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Law, its coverage remains the Akwa Ibom State. Furthermore, the legislative competence of the Akwa Ibom State House of Assembly pursuant to Section 4 (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended is confined and restricted to the geographical area of Akwa Ibom State. Thus, any law that seeks to impose civil or criminal penalty outside the territorial area of the state shall be ultra vires the legislative powers of the State House of Assembly. Furthermore, Courts in a given state shall only exercises jurisdiction within the confines of that particular state.
The appellant in this case had averred that its area of operation is within the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Territorial Waters of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which fact was nowhere denied or controverted by the 1st respondent.

The provision of Section 1 (1) of the Exclusive Economic Act, Cap. 17 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 leave no one in doubt that same is outside the domain of a state. The said Section 1(1) of the Act provides:
“Section 1(1) – Subject to the other provision of this Act, there is hereby denominated a zone to be known as the Exclusive Economic Zone of Nigeria (in this Act referred to as the “Exclusive Zone”) which shall be an area extending from the external limits of the territorial waters of Nigeria up to a distance of too nautical rules from the baseline from which the breath of the territorial waters of Nigeria is measured.”
If a law is restricted by territory, that law cannot be applied outside that territory. The only circumstances where the Court in the territory where the law is made can apply is where part of the offence is committed in that territory which is not the case here. See MORAH V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2018) 75 NWLR (prt 1641) 60.

As part of its supervisory control over an inferior Court, tribunal or a body entrusted with the performance of a judicial or quasi-judicial function, a High Court must ensure that it does not

exceed its jurisdiction or commit irregularities thereby making its decision bad on its face. See NWAOBOSHI V. MILITARY ADMINISTRATOR DELTA STATE (2003) 11 NWLR (prt 831) 305. Also in STATE V. LAWAL (Supra) the Supreme Court has held that a serious error of law on the face of the record of an inferior Court will justify the removal of the entire proceedings of the Court to the High Court by certiorari order to be quashed by the High Court in the exercise of the supervisory powers of the High Court.
It needs to be restated that jurisdiction of a Court to hear a matter is a hard matter of law that can only be determined in the light of the enabling statute. Thus, a Court of law cannot add to or subtract from the provisions of the statute. As a matter of law, a Court must blindly follow and apply the jurisdictional limits and limitations as contained or provided in a statute. It is the statute that is the master and all that a Court of law does is to interpret the provisions of the statute in order to achieve the clear intention of the lawmaker. See MADUMERE V. OKWARA (2013) 12 NWLR (prt 1368) 303, OPARA V. AMADI (2013) 12 NWLR (prt 1369)512 and ABDULSAMAD & ORS V. IBRAHIM & ORS (2015) LPELR 40388 (CA).

The appellant’s contention both here and at the lower Court is that since the minimum fine the 2nd respondent could impose upon conviction is N500,000, the 2nd respondent does not have any discretion should the appellant been found guilty. Thus, the 2nd respondent whose monetary jurisdictional limit is N30,000 cannot continue with the proceedings before the Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State.
Section 4 of the Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Law establishes Environmental/Sanitation Court to be presided by a Magistrate in accordance with Magistrate’s Court Law with inter alia power to fine on the spot any individual or organization that commits any environmental offences under the law. The provisions of Section 18 of the Magistrates’ Courts Cap. 82 of the Laws of Akwa Ibom State on the other hand stipulates the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates in criminal causes and matters as follows:
“18.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Law or any other written law a Chief Magistrate Grade One or Chief Magistrate

Grade Two shall have full jurisdiction in criminal causes for the summary trial and determination of criminal cases as follows:-
(a) Where any person is charged with committing an offence or with doing any act or with omitting to do any act required by law, the commission or omission of which is in any case punishable either by fine not exceeding thirty thousand naira or by imprisonment not exceeding five years or by both the Chief Magistrate shall have power to impose the punishment specified by law and no Chief Magistrate shall be required to comply with the provisions of Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Law when trying any offence under this paragraph;
(b) (i) Where any person is charged with committing an offence or with doing any act or omitting to do any act required by law, the commission or omission of which is stated by the enactment declaring such to be both an offence and to be one punishable or triable or liable to be dealt with on summary conviction or summarily or in a summary manner the Chief Magistrate shall have the power to award the maximum sentence of imprisonment and to order the payment of the maximum fine or penalty or

forfeiture provided by such enactment or both such imprisonment and such fine or penalty or forfeiture where by law both may be imposed:
(ii) Where any enactment provides that an order for the payment of money may be made on summary conviction or summarily or in a summary manner in respect of any act or omission the chief magistrate shall have the power to order the payment of the sum which may be ordered according to the provisions of the enactment providing for the making of the order;
(c) Where any person is charged with committing an offence or with doing any act or with omitting to do any act required by law; the commission or omission of which is an offence not stated to be punishable on summary conviction or triable summarily or in a summary manner, and it is stated by the enactment declaring such to be an offence that is punishable either by a fine exceeding thirty thousand naira or by imprisonment exceeding five years or both, but taking into account the circumstances of the particular offence with which such person is charged and the character and antecedents of the accused himself the Chief Magistrate is of opinion that the charge then

before the Court appears to be one of such a nature that, if proved, it would be adequately punished by any of the following punishments-
(i) Imprisonment for not more than five years;
(ii) A fine not exceeding thirty thousand naira, such fine to be enforced in default of payment by distress or by imprisonment for not more than five years.
From the above, it is my humble view that the Revenue Court presided over by the 2nd respondent whose monetary limit is N30,000.00 cannot try charge NO. REU/1133C/2018 which attracts a minimum five of N500,000.00.

In the result, this appeal shall be and is hereby allowed. The ruling of the High Court of Justice of Akwa Ibom State delivered on 19/11/2019 is hereby set aside. I accordingly grant the order of certiorari and quash the criminal summons on the appellant on charge NO. REU/1133C/2018 Akwa Ibom Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency V. Cameron Offshore System Nig. Limited and all other proceedings already undertaken in the matter pursuant to the charge.

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A.: I have the opportunity of reading in draft the judgment by my MUHAMMED L. SHUAIBU, J.C.A. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion in the judgment.

In particular, I agree with the lead judgment that the Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State whose monetary jurisdictional limit is N30,000.00 cannot try Charge No. REU/1133C/2018 which attracts a minimum fee of N500,000.00.
I also allow the appeal. I abide by the consequential orders.

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I read in advance, in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, MUHAMMED L. SHUAIBU, J.C.A. I am in complete agreement with my learned brother that the Revenue Court presided over by the 2nd Respondent lacks the jurisdiction to entertain charge No. REU/1133C/2018 which attracts a penalty of N500,000 as against the N30,000 monetary limit of the Court.

Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the ruling of 19/11/2019 of the High Court Akwa Ibom State.

I abide by all other orders in the judgment.

Appearances:

E. Ugbeta For Appellant(s)

Inem Okorie For Respondent(s)