ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, LAGOS STATE v. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CATTLE DEALERS ASSOCIATION LAGOS STATE & ORS (2016)

ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, LAGOS STATE v. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CATTLE DEALERS ASSOCIATION LAGOS STATE & ORS

(2016)LCN/8572(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 6th day of May, 2016

CA/L/158/2013

RATIO

COURT: JURISDICTION; HOW IS JURISDICTION OF A COURT DETERMINED
Generally, it is primarily the subject matter in any claim that determines whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter. The Supreme Court in the case of GAFAR v. GOVT., KWARA STATE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1024) 375 had this to say:
“I wish to stress by way of emphasis, that jurisdiction, implies the power or authority of a Court, to adjudicate over a particular subject matter. As I already stated in this judgment, the nature of the claim, determines the jurisdiction of the Court.”
It is now standard practice and has been settled beyond citing authorities that the jurisdiction of the Court can only be determined from the reliefs sought in the writ of summons and statement of claim, see the case of OLORUNTOBA-OJU v. ABDUL – RAHEEM (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83 S.C. PER YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
COURT: JURISDICTION; IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION
It is also trite that jurisdiction is so fundamental in any proceeding that where a Court does not have jurisdiction over a matter before it and it proceeds to hear and determine the matter, the entire proceedings no matter how well concluded would amount to a nullity, GBAGBARIGHA v. TORUEMI & ANOR (2012) LPELR-15535(SC). Jurisdiction in its strict sense is the limit which is imposed upon the power of a validly constituted Court to hear and determine issues properly brought before it. The jurisdiction of any Court is not at large but is circumscribed within the confines of the law. The distinctive nature of the issue of jurisdiction was spelt out in the case of DANGANA & ANOR v. USMAN & ORS. (2012) LPELR-7827(SC) (CONSOLIDATED) as follows:
“The unique aspect of jurisdiction is that Courts are set up by the Constitution, Decrees, Laws, Acts and Edicts. They cloak the Courts with the powers and their jurisdiction of adjudication. If the Constitution, Decrees, Acts, Laws and Edicts do not grant jurisdiction to a Court or tribunal, the Court and the parties cannot by agreement endow itself with jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Court is confined, limited and circumscribed by the Statute creating it. In view of the fad that jurisdiction is a threshold matter, it is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the Court to hear and determine a suit.
Where a Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a matter, the entire proceedings no matter how well conducted and decided would amount to a nullity. It is mandatory and very crucial that Courts decide the issue of jurisdiction before looking into the extent of judicial power exercisable under that jurisdiction.” PER YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
The sources of jurisdiction of Nigeria Courts can be gleaned from the Constitution and Statutes. With respect to the Federal High Court, Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution expressly stipulates the matters which it can exercise jurisdiction over.
The 3rd and 4th Respondents submits that the central issue to be determined is the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court with respect to Subsection (q)(r)(s) of S. 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. The above provisions read thus:
“251 (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters –
p. the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
q. subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
r. any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.
s. such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly:
Provided that nothing in the provisions of Paragraphs (p), (q) and (r) of this Subsection shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.” PER YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: INSTANCES THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT WILL NOT ASSUME JURISDICTION IN A MATTER
The fact that a Federal agency such as the police meddles into State affairs like tax collection does not mean the Federal High Court is now bestowed with jurisdiction over such matters under Section 251 (1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution. By so doing, the police was not acting as agents of the Federal Government but acting on behalf of the State Government. A similar decision was reached in the case of SIR JUDE AGBASO v. HON. SIMEON IWUNZE & ORS (2014) LPELR-24108(CA), where the Court stated as follows:
“… it must be appreciated that the Commissioner of Police, when carrying out duty, purely, in relation to the State matter cannot be regarded as agency of the Federal Government.”
More so, jurisdiction is determined by the combination of parties and subject matter. This position was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of OBIUWEUBI v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (2011) 7 NWLR 465 thus:
“For the Federal High Court to have jurisdiction under Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution or Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution the following must coexist.
(a) The parties or a party must be the Federal Government or its agencies:
(b) Subject matter of the Litigation.
That is to say jurisdiction is the combination of parties and subject matter. The words used in this piece of legislation are plain as plain can be and have been interpreted by this Court on several occasions. See: N.E.P.A. v. EDEGBERO 2002 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) P79, OLORUNTOBA-OJU v. ABDUL-RAHEEM & 3 ORS 2009 5-6 SC (Pt. 11) P.57. Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.”
Furthermore, the deployment of men of the Nigeria Police to mount road blocks for the collection of the taxes and levies by the State and Local Government is not within the administrative duties of the Nigeria Police Force. The duties of the police are clearly spelt out under Section 4 of the Police Act as follows:
“The police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under the authority of this or any other Act.”
The actions carried out by the police cannot by itself impose an obligation on the Federal High Court to hear the case despite the fact that the Police is one of the parties to the suit. It is also of no consequence that the one of the reliefs sought at the lower Court is an injunctive relief and an order of specific performance against the police and the Attorney General. I have established earlier that when the subject matter of the suit does not fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the presence of a Federal Government agency as one of the parties without more cannot bestow the Federal High Court with jurisdiction to hear such a case. I have also stated that the police were simply being used as machineries to carry out State or Local Government objectives and were not acting as agents of the Federal Government. It is rather unfortunate that the police sometimes allow themselves to be willing tools in the hands of any person, body and or organization to perpetrate their activities. PER YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.
WORDS AND PHRASES: MEANING OF REVENUE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF FEDERATION
In the case of LAWAN v. ZENON PETROLEUM & GAS LTD & ORS (2014) LPELR-23206(CA), the Court defined the revenue of the Government of the Federation as:
“Revenue of the Government of the Federation” refers to the income which the Federal Government collects and receives into its treasury, and is appropriate for the payment of its expenses.” PER YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A.

JUSTICES:

SIDI DAUDA BAGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, LAGOS STATE – Appellant(s)

AND

1. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE CATTLE DEALERS ASSOCIATION LAGOS STATE
2. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES KURI DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
3. ATTORNEY GENERAL & MINISTER OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
5. ATTORNEY GENERAL & COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE ANAMBRA STATE – Respondent(s)

YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court delivered by HON. JUSTICE A. M. LIMAN on the 18th of December, 2008 wherein the lower Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the ruling, hence this appeal.

The brief facts of this appeal are that the 1st and 2nd Respondents commenced this action against the Attorney-General of the 36 States of the Federation including the Appellant and the 3rd and 4th Respondents. The proceeding was initiated by way of originating summons at the lower Court with respect to the mounting of road blocks for collection of levies from the members of the 1st and 2nd Respondents association. In the course of proceedings, the trial Court suo motu ordered that parties address it on whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case. Consequently, the trial Court ruled that it has jurisdiction to entertain the case and it is against this ruling that the Appellant has brought the appeal.

The Appellant filed his brief of argument dated 11/09/13 on the 11/09/2013 which was

relied upon and adopted at the hearing of this appeal.

The 3rd and 4th Respondent brief dated 15/10/2015 was filed on the 19/10/15 and adopted at the hearing. Appellant was granted leave to proceed in its appeal against the only 5 parties Respondent on record it wished to proceed against. An order was equally granted to the Appellant to use and rely on the same record of Appeal in the sister appeal no: CA/L/772/2011.
The Appellant formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:
“Whether the Federal High Court is vested with Jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the backdrop of the Respective provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Taxes and Levies (Approved Lists for Collection Act) CAP T2 LFN 2004”

On the part of the 3rd and 4th Respondents, they also formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:
“Whether having regards to the facts and circumstance of this case, the Federal High Court was right to assume jurisdictional competence to entertain this case”
The court shall adopt the issue formulated by the Appellant which is basically the same as the issues formulated by the 3rd and 4th

Respondents.

The Appellant stated the importance and fundamental nature of jurisdiction in all trials, relied on UTIH v. ONOYIVWE (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166, ATTORNEY OF LAGOS STATE v. HON. J. L. J. DOSUNMU (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 111) 552, MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM (1962) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 4) 557, TUKUR v. GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517. He submitted that the Federal High Court lacks the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ claim at the lower Court because the allegedly imposed taxes and levies on the cattle merchants constitute the revenue of the States of the Federation which is outside the contemplation of S. 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution, referred to SHITTU v. NIGERIA AGRIC & CO-OP. BANK (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 721) 298, A.G. FEDERATION v. A.G. ABIA STATE (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 275) 689. That in determining the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the subject matter as well as the parties must be considered together and where agencies of the Federal Government are made parties in matters like State Government/ Local Government Revenue, such matters do not come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the

Federal High Court, referred to ONUORAH v. KADUNA REFINING CO LTD (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393, NNPC v. SLB CONSORTIUM LTD (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1113) 297, NATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES 2010 2-3 SC 27, ADETAYO v. ADEMOLA & ORS 2010 3-5 SC (Pt. 1) 87, SPDC (NIG) LTD v. SIRPI-ALUSTEEL CONSTRUCTION LTD (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1067) 128. The Appellant therefore submitted that the 3rd and 4th Respondents’ enforcement of the Taxes and Levies Act, 2004 without more, cannot vest the Federal High Court with jurisdiction in the face of obvious want of jurisdiction and it is the State High Courts that are traditionally designed to handle such issues.

In response, the counsel for the 3rd and 4th Respondents submits that it is only the writ of summons and statement of claim that should be examined in determining whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to entertain any suit, cited GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE v. LAFIAGI (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 917) 139, EGBUONU v. BRTC (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 29. That the Nigeria Police Force who is a party to the suit is undoubtedly an agency of the Federal Government as contemplated in Section

251 (1) (p), (q), (r) and proviso to (s) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Based on the questions in the reliefs of the originating processes and being that the action was seeking injunctive relief and specific performance against agencies of the Federal Government i.e. the Nigeria Police Force and the Attorney General of the Federation, counsel submitted that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That the decision to send police personnel to mount road blocks is an administrative decision thereby giving the Federal High Court jurisdiction to hear the case. The 3rd and 4th counsel further submitted that the Federal High Court was also right in assuming jurisdiction as the action was based on the Taxes and Levies (Approved List for collection) Act, a law contemplated under the Constitution. He referred to the cases of NEPA v. EDEGBENRO (2002) 12 SC (Pt. 11) 119 while submitting that the cases of EGBUONU v. BORNO RADIO (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 29 and OKOROMA v. UBA (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 587) 359 where the Court held that the mere fact that Federal Government agencies are parties to a suit does not give the Federal High Court

jurisdiction over such matters, are no longer the correct position of the law.

RESOLUTION:
This appeal basically revolves around the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court with respect to disputes relating to the mode and manner of collection of taxes and levies from the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Generally, it is primarily the subject matter in any claim that determines whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter. The Supreme Court in the case of GAFAR v. GOVT., KWARA STATE (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1024) 375 had this to say:
“I wish to stress by way of emphasis, that jurisdiction, implies the power or authority of a Court, to adjudicate over a particular subject matter. As I already stated in this judgment, the nature of the claim, determines the jurisdiction of the Court.”
It is now standard practice and has been settled beyond citing authorities that the jurisdiction of the Court can only be determined from the reliefs sought in the writ of summons and statement of claim, see the case of OLORUNTOBA-OJU v. ABDUL – RAHEEM (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83 S.C.

It is also trite that jurisdiction is so fundamental in any proceeding

that where a Court does not have jurisdiction over a matter before it and it proceeds to hear and determine the matter, the entire proceedings no matter how well concluded would amount to a nullity, GBAGBARIGHA v. TORUEMI & ANOR (2012) LPELR-15535(SC). Jurisdiction in its strict sense is the limit which is imposed upon the power of a validly constituted Court to hear and determine issues properly brought before it. The jurisdiction of any Court is not at large but is circumscribed within the confines of the law. The distinctive nature of the issue of jurisdiction was spelt out in the case of DANGANA & ANOR v. USMAN & ORS. (2012) LPELR-7827(SC) (CONSOLIDATED) as follows:
“The unique aspect of jurisdiction is that Courts are set up by the Constitution, Decrees, Laws, Acts and Edicts. They cloak the Courts with the powers and their jurisdiction of adjudication. If the Constitution, Decrees, Acts, Laws and Edicts do not grant jurisdiction to a Court or tribunal, the Court and the parties cannot by agreement endow itself with jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Court is confined, limited and circumscribed by the Statute creating it. In view of the

fad that jurisdiction is a threshold matter, it is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the Court to hear and determine a suit.
Where a Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a matter, the entire proceedings no matter how well conducted and decided would amount to a nullity. It is mandatory and very crucial that Courts decide the issue of jurisdiction before looking into the extent of judicial power exercisable under that jurisdiction.”

The sources of jurisdiction of Nigeria Courts can be gleaned from the Constitution and Statutes. With respect to the Federal High Court, Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution expressly stipulates the matters which it can exercise jurisdiction over.

The 3rd and 4th Respondents submits that the central issue to be determined is the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court with respect to Subsection (q)(r)(s) of S. 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution. The above provisions read thus:
“251 (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court

shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters –
p. the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
q. subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
r. any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.
s. such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly:
Provided that nothing in the provisions of Paragraphs (p), (q) and (r) of this Subsection shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.”

For clarity, the reliefs sought at the lower Court is reproduced hereunder:
1. A declaration that the

mounting of Road blocks or causing a road block to be mounted by any of the 3rd-38th Defendant State Governments or its Agents or any Local Government within any State or by any agent purportedly acting on its behalf for the purpose of collecting any tax, revenue or levy or other monies by whatsoever name called from members of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff Associations contravenes the Law and is therefore an illegal act.
2. A declaration that the road block mounted on the Federal High ways and any other High ways by any of the 3rd-38th Defendant State Governments and its agents or by Local Government Authorities within any State or through their agents particularly at such points at Mokwa and Jebba in Niger State, Bode Saadu in Kwara State, Ogbomosho and Oyo State, Ogere in Ogun State, Isheri toll gate in Lagos State or any other point within the Federation for the purpose of collecting taxes and levies from members of the 1st and 2nd plaintiff associations constitutes a gross violation of the Law and therefore illegal.
3. An Order restraining and or prohibiting all officers and men of the Nigerian Police Force from being used for the purpose of

mounting a road block on the High way in any part of the Federation to collect from members of the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs any tax or levy by whatsoever name called on behalf of the 3rd-38th Defendant State Governments or its agents or any Local Government authority within any State.
OR
In the event of any disobedience by any police officer, an order of the Honourable High Court directing and or compelling the 1st and 2nd Defendants to arrest and prosecute or ensure the prosecution of such an officer of the Nigeria Police or any other person or persons engaged, used or involved in the mounting of Road block for the purpose of tax or levy collection.
4a. A declaration that the employment and engagement of touts or “Area boys” or tax consultants and other individuals outside the meaning of appropriate tax authority as agents or collaborators of any of the 3rd-38th Defendant State Governments or any Local Government authority for the assessment and collection of tax and other levies amounts to an illegal breach of the Law.
b. A declaration that the 3rd-38th Defendant State Governments or any Local Government Authority within any State or its

agent cannot legally assess or collect any tax or levy whatsoever from a cattle and that anything done to the contrary is unlawful, unconstitutional and illegal.
Deriving from the above declaratory reliefs, the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs further seek.
A. An Order of injunction restraining all and or any of the 3rd-38th Defendant State Governments jointly and severally or any local Government Authority within any State or any agent(s) employed for such a purpose from mounting a road block on any High way for the purpose of collecting or levying tax of any guise whatsoever on cattle dealers and merchants passing through its territory.
B. An Order or perpetual injunction restraining all and or any of the 3rd-38th Defendant State Governments jointly and severally or any Local Government Authority within any State of the Federation from carrying out any further assessment or collection of any tax or levy by whatsoever name called e.g. movement permits, meat inspection fees, control post levies, cattle tax or in any other guise whatsoever from cattle dealers and merchants or transporters transiting through its domain.

Firstly, the 3rd and 4th

Respondents are misconceived as to the role played by the Nigerian Police in this matter. The fact that a Federal agency such as the police meddles into State affairs like tax collection does not mean the Federal High Court is now bestowed with jurisdiction over such matters under Section 251 (1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution. By so doing, the police was not acting as agents of the Federal Government but acting on behalf of the State Government. A similar decision was reached in the case of SIR JUDE AGBASO v. HON. SIMEON IWUNZE & ORS (2014) LPELR-24108(CA), where the Court stated as follows:
“… it must be appreciated that the Commissioner of Police, when carrying out duty, purely, in relation to the State matter cannot be regarded as agency of the Federal Government.”
More so, jurisdiction is determined by the combination of parties and subject matter. This position was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of OBIUWEUBI v. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (2011) 7 NWLR 465 thus:
“For the Federal High Court to have jurisdiction under Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution or Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution the following must coexist.
(a)

The parties or a party must be the Federal Government or its agencies:
(b) Subject matter of the Litigation.
That is to say jurisdiction is the combination of parties and subject matter. The words used in this piece of legislation are plain as plain can be and have been interpreted by this Court on several occasions. See: N.E.P.A. v. EDEGBERO 2002 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) P79, OLORUNTOBA-OJU v. ABDUL-RAHEEM & 3 ORS 2009 5-6 SC (Pt. 11) P.57. Per RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.”
Furthermore, the deployment of men of the Nigeria Police to mount road blocks for the collection of the taxes and levies by the State and Local Government is not within the administrative duties of the Nigeria Police Force. The duties of the police are clearly spelt out under Section 4 of the Police Act as follows:
“The police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under

the authority of this or any other Act.”
The actions carried out by the police cannot by itself impose an obligation on the Federal High Court to hear the case despite the fact that the Police is one of the parties to the suit. It is also of no consequence that the one of the reliefs sought at the lower Court is an injunctive relief and an order of specific performance against the police and the Attorney General. I have established earlier that when the subject matter of the suit does not fall within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the presence of a Federal Government agency as one of the parties without more cannot bestow the Federal High Court with jurisdiction to hear such a case. I have also stated that the police were simply being used as machineries to carry out State or Local Government objectives and were not acting as agents of the Federal Government. It is rather unfortunate that the police sometimes allow themselves to be willing tools in the hands of any person, body and or organization to perpetrate their activities.

The principal claims arose from the actions of the various State Governments or its agencies

mounting road blocks, to collect taxes and levies from the members of the 1st and 2nd Respondent association while engaging the services of the police and touts. I cannot find any statutory provisions conferring on the Federal High Court jurisdiction to entertain the reliefs sought by the 1st and 2nd Respondent. The provisions of S. 251 (1) (p) (q) (r) and proviso to (s) are therefore inapplicable in this case.

Besides, the taxes and levies collected from the 1st and 2nd Respondents by the State and Local Governments and their agents do not amount to Federal Government Revenue. In the case of LAWAN v. ZENON PETROLEUM & GAS LTD & ORS (2014) LPELR-23206(CA), the Court defined the revenue of the Government of the Federation as:
“Revenue of the Government of the Federation” refers to the income which the Federal Government collects and receives into its treasury, and is appropriate for the payment of its expenses.”

It is clear from the claims and reliefs that the taxes referred to by the 1st and 2nd Respondents at the lower Court, are taxes collected by the State and Local Government (and its agencies) and not the Federal Government. Besides

such money or moneys are not coming into the purse of the Federal Government and are used solely for the State and not for the Federal Government, see ADETONA & ORS v. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (2011) LPELR-159(SC), MOKELU v. FEDERAL COMMISSIONER FOR WORKS & HOUSING (1976) 3 SC 35.
Furthermore, the tax collected from the members of the 1st and 2nd Respondents association is not a Federal tax but a State tax. It can be likened to the various taxes and or levies collected by various State officials from public bus drivers or taxi drivers. Such taxes and or levies are not regulated by the Federal Inland Revenue or by any Federal agency but are purely within the confines of the State or Local Government. Section 1, Part 1 of the TAXES AND LEVIES (APPROVED LIST FOR COLLECTION) ACT 1998 VOL. 21, LFN, 2004, lists out the taxes to be collected by Federal Government as follows:
“1. Company income tax
2. Withholding tax on companies, residents of Federal Capital Territory Abuja and non-resident individuals
3. Petroleum profit tax
4. Value added tax
5. Education tax
6. Capital gains tax on residents of the Federal Capital

Territory, Abuja, bodies corporate and non-resident individuals.
7. Stamp duties on bodies corporate and residents of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja
8. Personal income tax in respect of –
(a) Members of the Armed forces of the Federation
(b) Members of the Nigeria Police force.
(c) Residents of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja; and
(d) Staff of the Ministry of foreign Affairs and non-resident individuals.”
More so, the collection of taxes by the State and Local Government from members of the 1st and 2nd Respondent association is purely a State affair and since jurisdiction is primarily determined by the subject matter of the case, the Federal High Court cannot have jurisdiction with respect to State affairs. In the case of FEDERAL MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND TOURISM & ANOR v. EZE (2005) LPELR-5626(CA), the Court held thus:
“…one of the principles developed on the point from the decided cases is that in their interpretation or application of Section 251 on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the Courts construe the said provision strictly or even technically and they confine themselves in

that sense only to the specific subjects or subject matters contained in the section. Thus, any other matter or subject not specifically mentioned under or in the provision of the section are regarded as excluded from the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.”

In my opinion, the attempt by the learned trial Judge to expand the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain the suit was misconceived. The correct forum for the 1st and 2nd Respondent to seek their reliefs is the State High Court.

In all, the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The sole issue for determination must be resolved in favour of the Appellant against the Respondents and it is hereby so resolved. The appeal is meritorious and is therefore allowed. The ruling of the Federal High Court delivered by HON. JUSTICE A. M. LIMAN on the 18th of December, 2008 assuming jurisdiction to entertain the suit is hereby set aside.

Each party to bear its cost.

SIDI DAUDA BAGE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege in reading in draft the lead judgment just delivered by my Learned Brother Y. B. Nimpar, J.C.A. I agree with the

conclusions that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

I also resolve the sole issue for determination in favour of the Appellant against the Respondents.
Accordingly, I abide by the decisions and the orders made by my learned brother in the lead judgment.

SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.: I have read before now a draft copy of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Y. B. NIMPAR, JCA.

The sole issue in contention has been adequately and exhaustively addressed and I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that the appeal is meritorious and should be allowed.

I also allow the appeal and I abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment including the order as to costs.

Appearances

Absent For Appellant

AND

Chima Ataegbu for 3rd & 4th Respondent

Emeka Okpoko for 5th Respondent For Respondent