LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

ABUBAKAR & ORS v. SANI & ANOR (2022)

ABUBAKAR & ORS v. SANI & ANOR

(2022)LCN/15960(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, March 24, 2022

CA/ABJ/CV/147/2022(R)

Before Our Lordships:

Haruna Simon Tsammani Justice of the Court of Appeal

Biobele Abraham Georgewill Justice of the Court of Appeal

Danlami Zama Senchi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. SIRAJO ABUBAKAR 2. USMAN ABDULLAHI AHMED 3. ZAYYANU SHEHU 4. AUWAL ABUBAKAR 5. ABDULLAHI MUHAMMAD 6. ABDULKADIR MUHAMMAD APPELANT(S)

And

1. HON. MAINASARA ABUBAKAR SANI (On Behalf Of Himself & Member Of The State Local Government & Ward Executives APC, Sokoto State Chapter) 2. ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION

It is settled law that, jurisdiction is the power or authority of a Court to take cognizance of matters presented to it in a formal way for determination. It is a threshold issue and the livewire that determines whether a Court or Tribunal has the competence to hear and determine a matter presented before it. See Achonu v. Okuwobi (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1584) 142 at 171; Odedo v. INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt.1117) 554 and Adeleke v. OSHA (2006) NWLR (Pt. 1006) 608. In Oloba v. Adereja (1988) 7 S.C (Pt. 1) 1 at 14-15, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental, as it goes to the competence of the Court or Tribunal. If a Court or Tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for a Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim. There is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none, it is injustice to the law, to the Courts and the parties to do so”.

What primarily confers jurisdiction on a Court of law is the statute that created the Court; and that would be, either the Constitution or other statute. See A.G; Rivers State v. A.G; Akwa Ibom State (2011) LPELR-633 (SC) and Egharevba v. Eribo (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 411. The parties are not at liberty nor does the Court have the power to confer jurisdiction on itself, where there is none. Thus, if the Court lacks jurisdiction, it must not willy-nilly insist that it has jurisdiction. PER TSAMMANI, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON WHERE A COURT LACKS THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE A CAUSE

It is the settled law that, where a Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine a cause, it will lack the power to pronounce on the merit or otherwise of the matter. In other words, any step taken in the proceedings, including any decision or judgment will amount to an exercise in futility. The only remedy, will be to strike out the initiating process and set aside any decision and/or judgment given thereon. See All Progressives Congress & Ors. v. Enugu State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors. (2021) LPELR-55337 (SC); Idisi v. Ecodril (Nig.) Ltd & Ors. (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 850) 1016 and Eze Okorocha v. United Bank for Africa Plc. & Ors. (2018) LPELR-45122 (SC). PER TSAMMANI, J.C.A.

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgement): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court of Justice delivered by O. A. Musa, J on the 16th day of December, 2021 in suit No: FCT/HC/CV/3265/2021.

By an Originating Summons filed on the 25/11/2021, the Appellants who were the Plaintiffs or Claimants in the trial Court, posed the following questions for determination:
​1. Whether upon the combined interpretation of Section 222(c), 223(1) (a) and 2(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as altered, Section 85(3) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Article 7(viii) of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress, 2014 (as amended), the 2nd Defendant, through its National Executive Committee, or any other Committee at its National Headquarters, can direct, supervise, sanction, approve or carryout the swearing in of the 1st Defendant and/or members of his Executives at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels, of All Progressives Congress, Sokoto State Chapter, at its National headquarters in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, when a petition has been forwarded to the 2nd Defendant’s National Headquarters in respect of the State, Local Government and Ward Congresses held on 16th October, 2021, 4th September, 2021 and 31st July, 2021 respectively, particularly when same has not been resolved.
2. Whether upon the combined interpretation of the provisions of Section 222, 223 (1) (a) and 2(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as altered; Section 85(3) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Articles 2 and 7 (viii) of the Constitution of All Progressives Congress, 2014 (as amended), the 2nd Defendant can proceed to swear in the 1st Defendant and/or members of his Executives at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels of the All Progressives Congress Sokoto State Chapter, at its National Headquarters in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja when the 2nd Defendant at its National Level has not accepted any report of State, Local Government and Wards Congresses held on 15th October, 2021, 4th September, 2021 and 31st July, 2021 respectively.

That, if those questions are answered in favour of the Claimants (now Appellants) the Court should grant them the following reliefs:<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>

1. DECLARATION that upon the combined interpretation of Section 222(c), 223(1) (a) and 2(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered, Section 85(3) of the Electoral Act, 2020 (as amended) and Article 7(viii) of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress, 2014 (as amended), which mandate the practice of internal democracy at all levels of the Party’s strata, the 2nd Defendant, through its National Executive Committee, or any other Committee at its National Headquarters, cannot direct, supervise, sanction, approve or carryout the swearing in of the 1st Defendant and/or members of his Executives at the State, Local Government and Ward levels of the All Progressives Congress, Sokoto State Chapter at its National Headquarters in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja when a subsisting petition has been submitted to the 2nd Defendant’s National Headquarters in respect of the Sokoto State, Local Government and Ward Congresses held on 16th October, 2021, 4th September, 2021 and 31st July, 2021 respectively, particularly when same is still pending and has not been resolved.
2. A DECLARATION that upon the combined interpretation of Section 222(c), 223(1)(a) and 2(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as altered, Section 85(3) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Articles 2 and 7(viii) of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress, 2014 (as amended), the 2nd Defendant cannot proceed to swear in the 1st Defendant and/or members of his Executives at the State, Local Government and Ward levels, of the All Progressives Congress, Sokoto State Chapter, at its National Headquarters in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, when the 2nd Defendant has not accepted any report of Sokoto State, State, Local Government and Wards Congress, held on 16th October, 2021, 4th September, 2021 and 31st July, 2021 respectively.
3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the 2nd Defendant and any person(s) acting through them, to halt the purported swearing of the 1st Defendant and members of his Executives at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels, of the All Progressives Congress, Sokoto State Chapter at its National Headquarters in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja until the Petition forwarded to the 2nd Defendant in respect of the Sokoto State, State, Local Government and Ward Congresses held on 16th October, 2021, 4th September, 2021 and 31st July, 2021 respectively, has been duly resolved.
4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the 2nd Defendant and any person(s) acting through them howsoever described, from giving recognition to the 1st Defendant and members of his Executives at the State, Local Government and Ward Levels of the All Progressives congress, Sokoto State Chapter.
5. AND for such further order or other relief(s) as this Honourable Court may deem just and expedient to make in the circumstances.

The Originating Summons was supported by an Affidavit of 31 paragraphs deposed to by Abdulkadir Muhammad who is the 6th Defendant/Appellant. Annexed to the Affidavit were 12 documents marked as Exhibits AM1-AM12 respectively. Accompanying the Originating Summons was a Written Address in support; and an “Affidavit of Extreme Urgency”. In opposition to the Originating Summons, the Defendants/Respondents filed a Counter-Affidavit of eight (8) paragraphs deposed to by one Progress Imoudu, a Legal Practitioner in the Law Firm of Messrs Oluwole Adaja & Co, counsel for the 1st Defendant/Respondent. Several documents marked as Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, were attached to the Counter-Affidavit. The 1st Defendant/Respondent also filed a Counter-Claim wherein, he posed the following questions for determination:
1. Whether in the light of the clear provisions of Section 223(1)(a), 223(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as altered, Section 85(3), (4), 86(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Articles 12.8, 12.10, 1213, 12.16, 13.4 (iv), 13.7, 13.8, 13.11 and 13.13 of the All Progressives Congress Constitution, 2014 (as amended), the 7th Defendant to the Counter-Claim having not set aside the Report of the Appeal Panel on the Sokoto State Congresses submitted to it at its headquarters in Abuja; ought to accord the counter-claimant and members of his Executives all the rights and privileges of a State Executive Committee provided for in the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress.
2. Whether in the light of the clear provisions of Section 223(1)(a), 223(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as altered, Section 85(3), (4), 86(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Articles 12.1(vi), (vii), (viii), 13.1 of the All Progressives Congress Constitution, 2014 (as amended), the Counter-Claimant and members of his Executives, and all other persons elected at the Local Government and Ward Congresses are not entitled to be members of the National Convention of the 7th Defendant to the Counter Claim.

The 1st Defendant/Counter-Claimant/Respondent, prayed that if the two questions reproduced above, are answered in his favour, the Court grant him the following reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that by the clear provisions of Section 223(2)(a), 223(2)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), Section 85(3), (4), 86(1) of the Electoral Act, 2010 (as amended) and Articles 12.8, 12.10, 12.13, 12.16, 13.4(iv), 13.7, 13.8, 13.11 and 13.13 of the All Progressives Congress Constitution, 2014 (as amended), the 7th Defendant to the counter-claim having not set aside the Report of the Appeal Panel on the Sokoto State Congresses, submitted to it at its Headquarters in Abuja; ought to accord the Counter Claimant and members of his Executives all the rights and privileges of a State Executive Committee provided for in the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress.
2. A DECLARATION that the Counter-Claimant and members of his Executives; persons elected by the Local Government Congresses and the three delegates from each Local Government Area are, by the provisions of the All Progressives Congress Constitution, 2014 (as amended), entitled to be members of the National Convention of the 7th Defendant to the counter-claim.
3. A DECLARATION that the 7th Defendant, cannot at its National Headquarters in Abuja, or at any other place, substitute the names of the Counter-Claimant, members of his Executive, members of the Local Government Area Executives, the Ward Executive Committee who were fully elected in the Sokoto State Congresses organized by the 7th Defendant to the Counter-Claim.
4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants and any person(s) acting through them to allow the Counter-Claimant, members of his Executive, members of the Local Government Area Executives, and the Ward Executive Committee to, without inhibition, perform their functions and be members of Committees as recognised in All Progressives Congress Constitution, 2014 (as amended).
5. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court restraining the Defendants and any person(s) acting through them howsoever described, howsoever called, from inhibiting the counter claimant, members of his Executive, members of the Local Government Area Executives, and Ward Executive Committee to, without inhibition, perform their functions and be members of committees as recognised in All Progressives Congress Constitution, 2014 (as amended).

The Counter-Claim was supported by an Affidavit of 8 paragraphs deposed to by one Progress Imoudu, a Legal Practitioner in the Law Firm of Messrs Oluwole Adaja & Co, counsel for the Counter-Claimant. Several documents marked as Exhibits, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J and K were exhibited along with the Counter-Claim. The address in support of the Counter-Claim is contained in the Written Address filed in opposition to the Originating Process. The Claimants who were Defendants to the Counter-Claim, filed a five (5) paragraphs Counter-Affidavit in opposition to the Counter-Claim; and same was accompanied by a Written Address in support. On 13/12/2021, the parties adopted their Written Addresses, and in a judgment delivered on 16/12/2021, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims but granted the reliefs sought in the Counter-Claim. The claimants are said to be displeased with the decision of the trial Court, and filed this appeal.

The Notice of Appeal consisting of five (5) Grounds of Appeal was filed on 21/01/2022. On 17/3/22 when this appeal came before us, it was further adjourned to 23/3/2022 for hearing as the parties were yet to file their Briefs of Arguments. When this appeal came up before us on 23/3/2022, learned counsel informed us that, the Appellants had filed their Appellants’ Brief of Argument and served same on the Respondents. However, Mr. Oluwole Adaja; Esq. who announced appearance for the 1st Respondent, informed the Court that, they were only served on 22/3/2022 and so had not been able to file any brief of arguments. Considering our decisions in Appeal Nos: CA/ABJ/CV/1020/21; CA/ABJ/CV/1034/21 and CA/ABJ/CV/03/22, we asked counsel to address us on whether the FCT High Court of Justice had the territorial Jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims before it.

Mr. Musa Etubi of learned counsel for the Appellants contended that, the FCT High Court had the jurisdiction to have heard and determined the matter. That the Appellants’ claims before the trial Court was a challenge to the swearing-in of the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent in Abuja.

Mr. Oluwole Adaja was addressing the Court as counsel for the 1st Respondent, when Mr. Nureini Jimoh; SAN appeared and apologized for coming late. He announced appearance as lead counsel for the 1st Respondent, and proceeded to address us on the issue of jurisdiction.

I recorded him as submitting as follows:
“The 1st Respondent will be raising the issue that the FCT High Court sitting in Abuja had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter ab initio. The subject matter is also the internal affairs of the political party and so the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter ab initio. We also rely on the recent decisions of this Court delivered on the 27/2/2022 in Appeal No: CA/ABJ/CV/1020/2021; CA/ABJ/CV/1034/2021 and CA/ABJ/03/2022. We therefore pray the Court to strike out the case instituted at the trial Court”.

In response, Mr. Etubi of learned counsel for the Appellants aligned himself with the submissions of learned senior counsel for the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent who had been served hearing notice was not in Court, so could not make any contribution on the issue.

The issue now before us, is to determine whether the Federal Capital Territory High Court had the territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine on the Claimants’/Appellants’ Originating Summons and the Counter-claim of the 1st Respondent. It is settled law that, jurisdiction is the power or authority of a Court to take cognizance of matters presented to it in a formal way for determination. It is a threshold issue and the livewire that determines whether a Court or Tribunal has the competence to hear and determine a matter presented before it. See Achonu v. Okuwobi (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1584) 142 at 171; Odedo v. INEC (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt.1117) 554 and Adeleke v. OSHA (2006) NWLR (Pt. 1006) 608. In Oloba v. Adereja (1988) 7 S.C (Pt. 1) 1 at 14-15, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental, as it goes to the competence of the Court or Tribunal. If a Court or Tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for a Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim. There is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none, it is injustice to the law, to the Courts and the parties to do so”.

What primarily confers jurisdiction on a Court of law is the statute that created the Court; and that would be, either the Constitution or other statute. See A.G; Rivers State v. A.G; Akwa Ibom State (2011) LPELR-633 (SC) and Egharevba v. Eribo (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 411. The parties are not at liberty nor does the Court have the power to confer jurisdiction on itself, where there is none. Thus, if the Court lacks jurisdiction, it must not willy-nilly insist that it has jurisdiction.

​The issue of jurisdiction that bothers us here, pertains to the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal Capital Territory High Court. That should be distinguished from substantive jurisdiction. Substantive jurisdiction refers to the subject matters over which a Court may adjudicate while territorial jurisdiction refers to the geographical area within which the authority of a Court may be exercised, and outside which the Court will have no power or authority to act. See Tukur v. Gov’t of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517. Thus, a Court must have both the substantive and territorial jurisdiction before it can validly hear and determine a matter. This is because, the subject matter of the claim may be within the substantive jurisdiction of the Court but relate to facts or events that occurred outside the territorial limits of the Court. In such a circumstance, the Court will be deprived of jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. See Dalhatu v. Turaki (supra); PDP v. Raheem & Ors. (2019) LPELR-48747 (CA) and Mallam Abduljalil Momoh Yahaya v. All Progressives Congress & Ors. (2019) LPELR-47845 (CA). InMailantarki v. Tongo (2017) LPELR-42467 (SC), the Supreme Court held that:
“It is settled law that, a Court in one state does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of another state… There cannot be any doubt that the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of the FCT is restricted and confined to causes and matters that arise within the Federal Capital Territory. In the instant case, the cause of action, which is the primary election of the 2nd Respondent, took place in Gombe State. There is no jurisdiction for the institution of the case before the High Court of the FCT in Abuja. The filing of the suit before that Court is a clear example of “forum shopping” in the hope of securing a favourable outcome. This practice does not augur well for the administration of justice. It is also unethical practice on the part of the legal practitioner who filed the suit”.
[underlined by me for emphasis]

In the instant case, the suit instituted at the FCT High Court of Justice is a by-product of the All Progressive Congress (APC) State, Local Government and Ward Congresses conducted in Sokoto State. All aspects of the said congresses took place in Sokoto State and there is no allusion that any aspects of those congresses took place within the FCT, Abuja. The issue whether the APC intended to swear the 1st Respondent or any other person in Abuja cannot be divorced or separated from the conduct of the APC congresses in Sokoto State. They are undoubtedly intertwined. The same circumstances apply in respect of the Counter-Claim. I am therefore, of the view that, the issues raised in the main claim and Counter-Claim, were contrived by the claimants and Counter-Claimants on us to willy-nilly confer jurisdiction on the trial Court. Sadly, the trial Judge either wittingly or unwittingly fell into the trap and assumed jurisdiction with unabashed relish assumed jurisdiction despite several warnings by the Supreme Court. See Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310 at 342; Wuyep v. Dongtoe (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187. Particularly, Ogundare, JSC (of blessed memory) in Dalhatu v. Turaki (supra) said:
“… I have taken pains to dismiss this judgment on territorial jurisdiction of a Court in view of recent developments whereby litigants rather than suing in the proper Courts come to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. I think their Lordships of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory ought to be circumspect before deciding whether or not it is wise and correct to exercise jurisdiction in matters outside the territory of the Federal Capital Territory. Their Court, unlike the Federal High Court has jurisdiction only in matters arising out of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja…”
My learned brother, Akomolafe-Wilson, JCA re-echoed this admonition by the Supreme Court in Mansur Manu Soro v. Ibrahim Hassan Galadima & Ors. (2019) LPELR-49092 (CA) in the following words:
“The instant appellant, as the plaintiff, had artfully avoided the High Court of Gombe State, in preference to the FCT High Court, because the former, as it appears may be a forum convenience. I say no more. The dictum of Ogundare, JSC, which I had earlier reproduced, should be sufficient to put their lordships of the FCT High Court on the watch out or guard so that their Courts will not be turned into axis of forum shopping…”

​It seems that some of the Judges of the FCT High Court, including the trial Judge in the instant case, have decided to ignore this strong admonition by this Court and the Supreme Court. This can be seen in the increasing number of appeals from the FCT High Court touching on the issue of the territorial jurisdiction of the FCT High Court. I think that the dictum of Ogundare, JSC should be given serious thought by those trial Judges, so that this Court will not be saddled with appeals of this nature which have turned out to be mere waste of valuable judicial time.

On the whole, it is my view which I hold and in agreement with the submission of learned senior counsel for the 1st Respondent, that the FCT High Court had no territorial jurisdiction when it heard the claims and Counter-Claims presented before it for determination. It is the settled law that, where a Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine a cause, it will lack the power to pronounce on the merit or otherwise of the matter. In other words, any step taken in the proceedings, including any decision or judgment will amount to an exercise in futility. The only remedy, will be to strike out the initiating process and set aside any decision and/or judgment given thereon. See All Progressives Congress & Ors. v. Enugu State Independent Electoral Commission & Ors. (2021) LPELR-55337 (SC); Idisi v. Ecodril (Nig.) Ltd & Ors. (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 850) 1016 and Eze Okorocha v. United Bank for Africa Plc. & Ors. (2018) LPELR-45122 (SC). That being so, I hereby hold that the trial Court erred in law, where it assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the 1st-6th Claimants/Appellants suit; and the 1st Respondent/Counter-claimant’s suit. Having thus held, I hereby order that the Originating Summons filed before the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court on the 25/11/2021 in Suit No: FCT/HC/CV/3265/2021 and the resultant Counter-Claim filed by the 1st Respondent, be struck for want of jurisdiction of the trial Court. The judgment delivered thereon, on the 16th day of December, 2021 is hereby set aside.
The parties are to bear their respective costs.

BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.: I have been availed a draft copy of the lead ruling just delivered by my noble lord, Haruna Simon Tsammani, JCA, the Presiding Justice of the Abuja Division. I was part of the robust conference in the preparation for the ruling and I am completely satisfied with the detailed and adroit reasoning and impeccable conclusions reached in the lead ruling.

My lords, in law, jurisdiction is the authority a Court has to entertain an action or matter brought before it. It is thus fundamental to adjudication and without it a Court would lack the power to entertain a suit over which it had not the requisite jurisdiction, since to do otherwise would amount to a nullity, no matter how well conducted the proceedings might be or how sound the resultant judgment or decision might be. In law, it is the claim of the Claimant that ordinarily determines the jurisdiction of the Court and therefore, once the claim of a Claimant is either outside the subject matter or territorial or other legal jurisdiction of the Court, it is incompetent and must be put or brought to an end. See Madukolu V Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 58 @ p. 595.

Thus, it does appear very certain to me therefore, having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances leading to the commencement of the Originating Summons by the Appellants against the Respondents in the High Court of the FCT Abuja, and not in Sokoto, where the cause of action clearly arose the Court below in my finding, and I so hold, clearly lacked the territorial jurisdiction either to hear and/or determine the Originating Summons of the Appellants against the Respondents. See Prince Yahaya Oyidi Audu V. APC & Ors (2019) 78 NSCQR 540; Dalhatu V. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310; Mailantarki V. Tongo & Ors (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 69; Dingyadi V. INEC (2001) 44 NSCQR 301 @ p. 340.
In all the above decisions, the Supreme Court emphatically pronounced and reiterated that the High Court of a State, which includes the Court below, and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, can only exercise jurisdiction in respect of matters which arose within their territorial, or geographical, jurisdiction. Indeed, the Court below is not an extra-territorial being or body that can stay in Abuja to know and decide on things that occurred or took place in faraway Sokoto State or indeed in any other State of the Federation. The cause of action, even from the horse’s mouth, the Appellants, no doubt arose outside Abuja and therefore, the only rational inference that can be drawn, and which I hereby so draw, is that in commencing their Originating Summons against the Respondents in the High Court of the FCT Abuja, the Appellants knew and were indeed engaging and engaged in forum shopping. See High Chief Ogonetus Okponetus & Ors V. All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) & Anor (2021) LPELR-55923 (CA) per Georegwiil JCA.

My lords, I have already found that the Court below lacked the territorial jurisdiction and competence to hear and determine the claims of the Appellants as Claimants as commenced before it vide Originating Summons over a cause of action that undoubtedly arose in faraway Sokoto against the Respondents. The Appellants’ suit constitutes an abuse of the process of Court. See Saraki V. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 @ p. 188.
It follows therefore, what the Appellants did was clearly forum shopping leaving the High Courts in Sokoto to go before the High Court of the FCT Abuja, which is indisputably a specie of abuse of Court process. See NDIC V. UBN Plc. (2015) LPELR-24316 (CA), where this Court in defining abuse of Court process relied on Dingyadi V. INEC (2001) 44 NSCQR 301 @ p. 340 as follows:
“The term “abuse of Court process” connotes simply the misuse of Court process and it includes acts which otherwise interfere with the course of justice. Clearly the acts includes where without reasonable grounds a party institutes frivolous, vexatious and oppressive actions and also by instituting multiplicity of actions or is on a frolic act of forum shopping, i.e. seeking for a favorable Court to entertain the matter.”

My lord, I am indeed, and sincerely so pained that despite the plethora and overwhelming decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court on the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the State High Courts as well as the High Court of the FCT Abuja, counsel still continue to file these sorts of matters before the High Court of the FCT Abuja in which the cause of action arose all over the far away and far flunked States away from Abuja. More worrisome and highly regrettable is the fact that these trial Courts still brazenly assume jurisdiction over matter whose cause of action arose far away and outside the limit of their territorial jurisdiction rather than terminating such ill-fated cases in limine.

The Supreme Court has spoken! This Court too has spoken!! The High Court of the FCT Abuja and all other High Courts of the States must hear and be bound!!! I say no more.

It is in the light of the above few words of mine but for the fuller reasons adroitly marshalled out in the lead ruling that I too hold that the Appellants’ suit as well as the 1st Respondent’s Counter-Claim were both incompetent and thereby robbed the Court below of the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine them on the merit. Consequently. I too strike both of them out for being incompetent. I shall abide by the consequential orders made in the lead ruling.

DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, J.C.A.: I was in conference with the panel of Justices that heard this appeal. The views I expressed during the conference have been substantially captured in the lead ruling of my learned brother and Presiding Justice, HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, JCA, and I agree with the finding and conclusion reached therein that this appeal is incompetent, as the lower Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and hear both the main suit and the Counter-Claim.

I want to lend my voice on the issue of territorial jurisdiction ably dealt with in this appeal in the lead judgment. The Plaintiffs, now Appellants, at the lower Court craftily and cleverly couched or drafted their originating processes including questions for determination and affidavit evidence to avoid the fact that the real cause of action occurred in Sokoto State, a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

However, upon a close perusal of the exhibited documents both in the main suit and the Counter-Claim, it became crystal clear to this Court that the issue of territorial jurisdiction had arisen, hence, on 23/03/2022, this Court invited the respective Counsel to the appeal to address it on whether the lower Court had territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine both the main suit and the counter-claim.

The learned Senior Counsel, Nureini Jimoh SAN in his submission posited that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit and he relied on the decisions of this Court in CA/ABJ/CV/1020/2021; CA/ABJ/CV/1034/2021 and CA/ABJ/CV/03/2022. The Appellants’ Counsel, Musa Etubi Esq. aligned himself with the position of the 1st Respondent’s Counsel, Nureini Jimoh, SAN that the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

​Now, the question of jurisdiction, whether territorial or substantive, is a threshold issue. And in this case, before the lower Court, the question is whether the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja extends to Sokoto State? In the case of AUDU V. APC & ORS (2019) LPELR-48134, the Supreme Court held:
“The Federal Capital Territory High Court, although established by the Federal Government, is just like any State High Court that has its territorial jurisdiction confined to the State and the Federal Capital Territory. It is unlike the Federal High Court that has territorial jurisdiction throughout the country. Because its territorial jurisdiction is confined to the Federal Capital Territory, it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine matters that take place outside the Federal Capital Territory. The limitation of the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal Capital Territory High Court received judicial pronouncement in DALHATU V. TURAKI (2003)15 NWLR (PT. 843) 310; MAILANTARKI V. TONGO & ORS (2018) 6 NWLR (PT. 1614). In Dalhatu V. Turaki & Ors, this Court as per Katsina-Alu JSC (as he then was) held: “it cannot be denied that the subject matter of the Appellants’ case relates to the governorship of Jigawa State, a territory that is distinct and separate from the Federal Capital Territory. If any Court must have jurisdiction over such a subject matter, it has to be the Court in Jigawa State. For the purpose of exercising jurisdiction, each State of the Federation is independent of the other and the jurisdiction of its Court is limited to matters arising in its territory. The subject matter of the instant appeal took place in Kogi State which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the FCT High Court. Since the FCT High Court had no jurisdiction to hear this matter, all the proceedings conducted before it with regard to this matter is a nullity.”
In the instant case, all the Wards, Local Government Area or State Congress elections that took place in Sokoto state, none took place in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. Therefore, territorially, it is only the competent Courts in Sokoto State that has jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject matter.

​Further, by the Appellants approaching this Court in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/147/2022 is in other words inviting this Court to sit on appeal over its earlier decisions cited in this ruling, which for all intents and purposes have the same substratum.

Thus, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, having lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the case, the entire proceedings in both the main suit and the Counter-Claim are a nullity. Consequently therefore, the judgment of the lower Court in Suit No. FCT/HC/BW/3265/2021 is hereby set aside, including the judgment in the Counter-Claim. Accordingly, the Suit No. FCT/HC/BW/3265/2021 filed before the lower Court on 25/11/2021 is hereby struck out.

In conclusion, I abide by the order(s) made in the lead ruling and I adopt same as mine.

Appearances:

Musa Etubi, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Nureini Jimoh, SAN, with him, Oluwole Adaja – for 1st Respondent
2nd Respondent is absent. For Respondent(s)