WECO ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED v. DUFAN NIGERIA LIMITED & ANOR
(2019)LCN/13029(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 4th day of April, 2019
CA/B/185/2009
RATIO
THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION AND WHETHER THE COURT CAN ASSUME JURISDICTION ON ITS OWN ACCORD
In that regard, no Court can assume jurisdiction in the absence of having been constitutionally or statutorily empowered to do so. In other words, jurisdiction is conferred on the Courts by the Constitution or statute to enable them exercise their powers to adjudicate on matters brought before them. See ADETAYO & ORS. VS. ADEMOLA & ORS. (2010) 3 ? 5 SC 89; OLOFU & ORS. VS. ITODO & ORS. (2010) 12 SC (PT. 1) 165; ARJAY LTD & ORS. VS. AIRLINE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT LTD (2003) 5 SCM 17.PER SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: IMPORTANCE
It follows therefore that the issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental that if it is found that the trial Court after all lacked jurisdiction, then the whole judgment which is the by product of such a trial becomes a nullity no matter how well conducted. See A.G. LAGOS STATE VS. DOSUNMU (supra); FUNDUK ENGINEERING LTD. VS. MIC ARTHUR & ORS. (1995) 1996) All NLR 90.PER SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.
HOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION
Furthermore, it is settled by a plethora of authorities that jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a suit is resolved by a scrupulous examination of the writ of summons, the statement of claim and the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. No other document should be examined. See ELABANJO VS. DAWODU (2006) 6 SCNJ 204; PDP VS. TIMIPRE SYLVA & ORS. (2012) 4 – 5 SC 36; PRINCE JOHN OKECHUKWU EMEKA VS. LADY MARGERY OKADIGBO & ORS. (2012) 7 SC (PT. 1) page 1.PER SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PHILOMENA MBUA EKPE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
WECO ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant(s)
AND
1. DUFAN NIGERIA LIMITED
2. ATLANTIC INSURANCE CO. LTD – Respondent(s)
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, sitting in Benin Division and delivered on the 23rd day of June, 2006. Wherein the plaintiffs (now 1st Respondent) claim was granted.
The Appellant and the 2nd Respondent herein were the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively in the lower Court while the 1st Respondent was the plaintiff.
The facts as per the plaintiff?s (now 1st Respondent) case is that it is the owner of the houseboat known as DUFAN VI which was hired by the Appellant on 26/10/1994. The terms of the hire contract were reduced into writing in a comprehensive agreement signed by the parties.
By the said contract, the Appellant was to return the Houseboat (DUFAN VI) to the 1st Respondent at the expiration of the hire contract which was for a period of two months from the date of commencement.
?The said houseboat was stationed in Warri Delta State where the Appellant took possession of same and moved it to Port-Harcourt, Rivers State where unfortunately it got submerged. The Houseboat upon eventual recovery
1
from the water, had remained in the custody of the Appellant. The 1st Respondent complaint is that the said Appellant has refused or failed to return the houseboat or pay the rents accruing from it, hence an action was instituted in the Federal High Court whereby in paragraph 39 of the 2nd Amended Statement of claim the 1st Respondent as claimed against the Appellant as follows:
?WHEREFORE, the plaintiff?s claim against the 1st Defendant as follows:
(a) The sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) being the cost of the 32 rooms House-Boat DUFAN VI and Generator Barge hired out by the plaintiff to the 1st Defendant at Warri within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court vide an agreement dated 26th day of October, 1994 executed between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant or in the Alternative a return of the said House-Boat and Generator/Barge in perfect condition as stipulated in clause 5 of the agreement dated 26th day of October, 1994.
(b) The sum of N1,800,000.00 (One Million Eight hundred thousand naira) being the hire fee due and payable on the said 32 rooms House-Boat DUFAN VI and Generator/Barge but
2
which said sum has not been paid by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff till date from the 16th day of November, 1994 to the 15th day of March, 1995.
(c) The sum of N20,000.00 (Twenty thousand naira) per day on the 32 room House-Boat DUFAN VI commencing from 14th day of February, 1995 till the date or return of the said generator House and canopy or judgment.?
Based on an application by the Appellant the 2nd Respondent herein was joined as 2nd Defendant by the lower Court on 22/4/1997.
The 1st Defendant also claimed against the Plaintiff as follows:
(a) The sum of N6,672,810.00 (six million six hundred and seventy two thousand, eight hundred and ten naira) as special damages for breach of contract and loss suffered by the 1st Defendant as a result of the sinking of the House Boat/vessel, the particulars of which are set out in paragraph 45 above.
(b) The sum N5,000,000.00(Five million Naira) as General damages for breach of contract.
(c) Interest on the said claimed at the rate of 21% per annum from the date hereof unto JUDGMENT and hereafter until final payment.?
In proof of its case, the 1st Respondent
3
called three witnesses while the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent called three witnesses and one witness respectively.
At the conclusion of hearing, the parties were ordered to file their respective written addresses which they also adopted and relied on at the proceeding of the Court on 30//3/2006.
In a judgment delivered on the 23rd day of June, 2006, the lower Court granted the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent and struck out the Appellant?s counter claim.
The Appellant was not satisfied with the said judgment and consequently filed a notice of appeal with eleven grounds of appeal on 13/9/2006.
Briefs of argument were eventually filed and served by the parties who adopted and relied on their respective briefs at the hearing of the appeal on 22/1/2019.
In the Appellants brief of argument settled by Kingsley K. Iheme Esq, and filed on 22/7/2009, the following six issues were distilled for determination:-
i. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right when he failed to find that the submerging of DUFAN VI (the subject matter of the contract Exhibit B?), an event not contemplated by
4
the parties, frustrated the contract between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent and consequently held that the Appellant was in breach of Exhibit B.
ii. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right when he failed to consider the question as to whether the 1st Respondent had discharged the onus on it to establish that the submerging of DUFAN VI was due to overloading by the Appellant and held that the 1st Respondent need not plead and prove negligence and/or particulars of negligence.
iii. Whether the 1st Respondent was still entitled to rental hire and not mitigate its losses having become aware that the House Boat DUFAN VI submerged on its own even before it was put to use by the Appellant.
OR
Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right when he held that the 1st Respondent is entitled to N18,000,000.00 as cost of DUFAN VI and total sum of N66,340,000.00 as hire rentals at the rate of N20,000 per day from 17/10/03 till judgment and until judgment sum is finally liquidated as well as cost of N70,000 against the Appellant which award is excessive, ridiculous high, amounts to double compensation and is based on wrong principles of law.
5
iv. Whether the Learned Trial Judge failed to evaluate properly the evidence before him before entering judgment against the Appellant and merely glossed over the Appellant?s evidence while completely accepting the evidence of the 1st Respondent (as Plaintiff).
v. Whether the Trial Court?s assumption of jurisdiction in the suit was proper having regard to the contract and alleged hire rental sum flowing there from.
vi. Whether the Learned Trial Judge was right when he relied solely on Exhibit ?B? in determining the dispute between the parties without recourse to Exhibit P1 (Marine Hull Insurance Policy) and held that the Appellant did not make out any claim against the 2nd Respondent thereby striking out the 2nd Respondent from the suit.?
The 1st Respondent?s brief of argument was settled by Chief E.E. Esosuakpo of E.L. Akpofure SAN & Co. It was filed on 5/2/2018 but deemed properly filed on 11/10/18. Therein the six issues as formulated in the Appellant?s brief was adopted for consideration.
?In the 2nd Respondent?s brief of argument settled by Chief
6
I.A. Atikueke and filed on 5/4/18 but deemed properly filed on 5/4/18, a sole issue was formulated for determination as follows:
“Whether from the totality of the processes filed and the evidence led in the suit, a sufficient case has been made against the 2nd Respondent to warrant setting aside the order of the trial Court striking out the 2nd respondent from the suit.?
I will rely on the six issues as formulated by the Appellant and adopted by the 1st Respondent in the consideration of this appeal.
Issue V deals with the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit in which case it will be germane to deal with same, given the fundamental and threshold nature of jurisdiction in the adjudication process. See AJAYI VS. ADEBIYI & ORS. (2012) 11 NWLR (PT. 1310), where the Supreme Court held that once an issue of jurisdiction is raised in a suit, the Court must not give an order in the suit affecting the other party until the issue of jurisdiction is settled. See also A.G LAGOS STATE VS. DOSUNMU (1989) 3 NWLR (PT.111) 552 and ONYEMA & ORS. VS. OPUTA & ORS. (1981) 2 NSCC 900.
7
The said Issue V reads thus:
Whether the trial Court?s assumption of jurisdiction in the suit was proper having regard to the contract and alleged hire rental sum flowing therefrom.?
Dwelling on this issue, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial Court erred in law when it entertained the suit which is founded on alleged breach of contract and alleged rental debt flowing from the contract. In this regard, reference was made to the reliefs sought in the 1st Respondent?s 2nd Amended Statement of Claim to contend that the claim is not founded on admiralty matters but on contract because the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act Cap A5 Law of the Federation 2004 did not expressly provide that a hire rental accruing from a submerged Houseboat or even ship is a general maritime claim.
He added that the issue of submerging of DUFAN VI which frustrated the contract and payment of rental has nothing to do with Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as it did not fall within the purview of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act but a matter of debts accruing from rentals and contract. On this he relied on the case of TEXACO OVERSEAS
8
(NIG) PETROLEUM CO. UNLIMITED VS. PEDMAR NIGERIA LIMITED (2002) FWLR (PT. 726) 885.
In their reply on this issue, learned counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that the 1st Respondent?s claim was founded on Admiralty and as such the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain same. He added that unlike the case of TEXACO OVERSEAS cited supra by the Appellant?s counsel, the instant case is not simply a case of debt owed by the Appellant to the 1st Respondent, because the subject matter hinges on the submerging, cost and the return of a marine vessel known as DUFAN VI. In support reference was made to Section 1 (1) (d) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act.
On the definition of a ship and the nature of a marine claim reference was made to Sections 26, 2(3) (f) and 3(b) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act.
In support of his contention that where a claim is in respect of argument on the use or hire of a ship, the High Court of a State has no jurisdiction to hear the matter being a general maritime matter, he placed reliance on the case of L.L.S.P.A. LTD VS. M/T TUMA (2011) 15 NWLR (PT. 1271) 612 at 633.
9
The 2nd Respondent did not address this issue.
The Appellant also filed a reply briefs to the 1st and 2nd Respondent?s briefs of argument. They were filed on 20/1/2/2018, the submissions therein, (though in most cases constitutes a re-argument) will be addressed as the need arises in the course of this judgment.
Now the fundamental nature of jurisdiction is that it does not exist in vacuum because all Courts of law derive their powers, authority and therefore jurisdiction either under the constitution or under specific statutes.
In that regard, no Court can assume jurisdiction in the absence of having been constitutionally or statutorily empowered to do so. In other words, jurisdiction is conferred on the Courts by the Constitution or statute to enable them exercise their powers to adjudicate on matters brought before them. See ADETAYO & ORS. VS. ADEMOLA & ORS. (2010) 3 ? 5 SC 89; OLOFU & ORS. VS. ITODO & ORS. (2010) 12 SC (PT. 1) 165; ARJAY LTD & ORS. VS. AIRLINE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT LTD (2003) 5 SCM 17.
It follows therefore that the issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental that if it is found that the
10
trial Court after all lacked jurisdiction, then the whole judgment which is the by product of such a trial becomes a nullity no matter how well conducted. See A.G. LAGOS STATE VS. DOSUNMU (supra); FUNDUK ENGINEERING LTD. VS. MIC ARTHUR & ORS. (1995) ? 1996) All NLR 90.
Furthermore, it is settled by a plethora of authorities that jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a suit is resolved by a scrupulous examination of the writ of summons, the statement of claim and the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. No other document should be examined. See ELABANJO VS. DAWODU (2006) 6 SCNJ 204; PDP VS. TIMIPRE SYLVA & ORS. (2012) 4 ? 5 SC 36; PRINCE JOHN OKECHUKWU EMEKA VS. LADY MARGERY OKADIGBO & ORS. (2012) 7 SC (PT. 1) page 1.
In the instant case, the Appellants contention that the trial Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit is based on the reliefs claimed by the 1st Respondent which to him does not relate to Admiralty matters but on contract and alleged debt for rent flowing from the contract. Also that the issue of submerging of the Houseboat DUFAN VI has nothing to do with the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
11
The reliefs claimed by the 1st Respondent as per paragraph 39 of the 2nd Amended Statement of Claim reads thus:
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff?s claim against the 1st Defendant as follows:
(a) The sum of N20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira) being the cost of the 32 rooms House-Boat DUFAN VI and Generator Barge hired out by the plaintiff to the 1st Defendant at Warri within the Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court vide an agreement dated 26th day of October, 1994 executed between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant or in the Alternative a return of the said House-Boat and Generator/Barge in perfect condition as stipulated in clause 5 of the agreement dated 26th day of October, 1994.
(b) The sum of N1,800,000.00 (One Million Eight hundred thousand naira) being the hire fee due and payable on the said 32 rooms House-Boat DUFAN VI and Generator/Barge but which said sum has not been paid by the 1st Defenda
