BELLO & ANOR v. A-G FEDERATION & ORS
(2022)LCN/16013(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, January 20, 2022
CA/L/559M/2010
Before Our Lordships:
Obande Festus OgbuinyaJ ustice of the Court of Appeal
Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Adebukunola Adeoti Ibironke Banjoko Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. PRINCE SHERIFF BELLO 2. CHIEF MUTIU KASALI APPELANT(S)
And
1. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION 2. LAGOS INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR MANAGEMENT BOARD 3. THE BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES 4. AULIC NIGERIA LIMITED 5. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
THE DEFINITION AND IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION IN A COURT OF ANY ADJUDICATION
Now, the importance of Jurisdiction of a Court in any adjudication of a matter cannot be over-emphasized. Without Jurisdiction, the Court will operate in futility. Jurisdiction is the power of a Court to adjudicate on a matter and cannot be underrated for the purpose of litigation. See SALISU V MOBOLAJI (2014) 4 NWLR (PT 1296) 1 AT 6; NSL LTD V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE (2009) 11 NWLR (PT 1152) PAGE 304 AT 306, KURMA V SAUWA (2019) 13 NWLR (PT 1659) PG 247; GT INVESTMENT LTD V WITTBRUSH LTD (2011) 8 NWLR (PT 1250) 500.
In MR JERRY CHUNG BOT & 3 ORS V JOS ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION PLC (2021) 15 NWLR (PT 1798) PAGE 53 AT 61 – 62, the Supreme Court PER MUSA SAULAWA JSC held:
‘’The question of whether or not a Court of law or Tribunal is imbued with jurisdiction to entertain and determine a matter or appeal before it, is not merely important but fundamental to the adjudication process. It is a threshold issue that cannot be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of caprice. This is so because any proceeding or trial conducted by a Court devoid of jurisdiction tantamount to a nullity, ab initio. It is futile to set down issues, deliberate on the evidence led, and resolve points of law raised, if the Court seized of the matter, is devoid of jurisdiction. The substratum of a Court is no doubt jurisdiction. Without it both litigants and counsel on the one hand and the Judge on the other hand labour in vain. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal deemed it expedient in its wisdom to suo motu raise the issue of jurisdiction and consequent upon the addresses of both learned counsel, it proceeded to strike out the appeal on the basis of absence of jurisdiction.’’ ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.
DETERMINATION OF THE JURIDICTION OF A COURT IN RELATION TO THE PRESENCE OF THE AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The Supreme Court in WEMA SECURITIES AND FINANCE PLC VS NIGERIA AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE CORPORATION (2015) 16 NWLR (PT. 1484) 93 AT 130 – 131, gave a clear position on this when His Lordship Per NWEZE JSC held:
“In my humble view, while it, rightly, found that the respondent is an agency of the Federal Government, FMBN VS OLLOH (SUPRA), IDONIBOYE-ODU VS N.N.P.C. (SUPRA), its conclusion that the mere presence of that agency of the Federal Government robbed the trial Court of jurisdiction must rankle all liberal constitutional jurisprudents and juridical exegetes. As indicated above, prior to the 1979 Constitution, Section 7 of the Federal High Court Act, Cap 134, LFN, 1990, set out the limited jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Section 251(1) (supra) now delineates the jurisdiction of that Court… and circumscribe it…. to only…. eighteen items… Such matters are, exclusively…. reserved for the Federal High Court…. In effect, the drafts person deliberately itemized the matters, which are intended to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of that Court or simply put, therefore, that Court, is a Court of enumerated jurisdiction and, a fortiori, its exclusive jurisdiction is expressly tied to those items enumerated there-under…. As such, in the exercise of its said exclusive jurisdiction, that Court (the Federal High Court) can only orbit within the universe of those enumerated issues and to others as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly…. However, actions on simple contract are not included in those items enumerated above, Adelekan VS EUC Line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 33 at 52; as such, the Court cannot arrogate to itself a jurisdiction only exercisable by the trial Court or a State High Court… on such simple contractual matters as the one which, the appellant tabled before the trial Court.” ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF A CLAIM THAT WILL DETERMINE IF IT IS A CASE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
From the foregoing, the mere fact that a Federal Government Agency is a party to a matter is not sufficient enough to cloth the Federal High Court with jurisdiction to hear a matter. It is the subject matter of a claim of each case that will determine whether it is a case within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. See ADETAYO & ORS VS ADEMOLA (Supra), WAMBAI VS DONATUS & ORS (2014) (Supra), OBI VS INEC (Supra) ADETONA & ORS VS IGELE (Supra). ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.
A COURT CANNOT AJUDICATE OVER AN ANCILLARY CLAIM IF IT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE MAIN CLAIM
It is clear that the major claim of the Appellants is firmly in the realm of the Federal High Court when due regard is had to the Provisions of Section 251 (r) the 1999 Constitution.
Once it is now clear that the State High Court cannot entertain the Principal Claim of the Appellant, the Question must be asked as to whether the Ancillary Claims therein could be entertained by it?
This question has been answered in many Judicial Decisions of the Apex Court. In EMEJURU V ABRAHAM & 2 ORS (2019) 4 NWLR (part 1663), His Lordship Per GALINJE JSC, held as follows:
“A Court cannot adjudicate over an Ancillary claim if it has no jurisdiction to entertain the main claim if the Ancillary claim will inevitably involve a discussion of the main claim. The Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim for declaration of Title to Land. Therefore, it cannot assume jurisdiction over a claim that is incidental to a main claim of declaration of title. In the instant case, the issue of laying of pipelines, etc. led to the main claim or principal claim which was basically on or related to title to the land in dispute. All other Ancillary Claims or Reliefs could not be granted or determined by the Court, without first of all determining to whom, the main claim of title to the land in dispute inured or to whom amongst the parties the title to the land in dispute belonged or to whom compensation would be paid.”
See also ALHAJI UMARU ABBA TUKUR VS GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PART 117) 51, ADENUGA & ORS VS ODUMERU & ORS (2001) LPELR-130 (SC), EGBUONU VS BORNU RADIO TELEVISION CORPORATION (1997) LPELR-1040 (SC), KAKIH VS PDP & ORS (2014) LPELR-23277 (SC)
It is clear from the foregoing that the State High Court will be somewhat incapacitated from decisively determining the Ancillary claims, because the main claim is the foundation of the Suit and any decision made therefrom would be fruitless. ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A.
ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the ruling delivered by Justice L.A Okunnu of the High Court of Lagos State, sitting at Ikeja Judicial Division in Suit No: ID/1147/2008 on the 28th day of April, 2009, as seen on Pages 127 – 132 of the of the Record of Appeal.
The Original Claimant was Oba Babatunde Lawal who was substituted to the current Appellants by an order of the Court of Appeal Dated 16th of May, 2017. He instituted this Suit by filing a Writ of Summons dated 31st July, 2008 with other Frontloaded Processes against the Respondents who were then Defendants at the High Court of Lagos State. The Appellants are Community Leaders of Igbanko U7NHY66Y7Y7G land.
The circumstances that gave rise to the dispute between the Parties started in 1973 when the Lagos State Government acquired a large expanse of land containing an area of approximately 857.6 acres for Public Purposes. This acquisition was in response to the request of the Federal Government through the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing for Land Allocation for the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex. This acquisition was recorded in the Lagos State of Nigeria Gazette No16 dated 4th of October, 1973.
It is the claim of the Appellants that the land acquired was part of the land of the Igbanko community and neither the Federal Government nor the State Government have paid the Community Members compensation for the Compulsory Acquisition of the land, despite numerous entreaties and appeals by the then Claimant to do so. The Appellants claimed to be aware that the Public Purpose for which the Land has been acquired has become spent. Therefore, the Land is no longer required for Public Purposes.
The Appellants’ claims against the Respondents are for the following as seen in Pages 2, 6 – 7 of the Records of Appeal:
(a) A Declaration that the Public Purpose for which the land approximately 857.6 acres was acquired by the Lagos State Government in response to the request of the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing for land allocation for the building of the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex which acquisition was properly recorded in the Lagos State of Nigeria Gazette No.16, Volume 6 dated 4th October, 1973 especially Notice No 110 at Pages 198 and 199 has become spent.
(b) A Declaration that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants whether acting jointly or severally or in concert with any other person, have no power to grant the land comprised in the Lagos State Government of Nigeria Gazette No 16, Volume 6 dated 4th October, 1973 especially Notice No 110 at Pages 198 and 199 and/or the edifice known as the Lagos International Trade fair Complex situate on the said land or any part of it to the 4th defendant or any other person by way of Lease, Sale, Concessioning or in any other manner.
(c) An Order setting aside the concessioning of the said Lagos International Trade Fair Complex or any part of it located on the land acquired from the people of Igbanko as recorded in the Lagos State Gazette No 16, Volume 6 dated 4th October, 1973 especially Notice 110 at Pages 198 and 19, to the 4th Defendant by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
(d) A Perpetual Order of Injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants whether acting jointly or severally or in concert with any other person from granting possession or yielding possession of all or any part the edifice known as the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex to the 4th Defendant or to any other person, as the Public Purpose for which the Land comprised in Lagos State of Nigeria Gazette No 16, Volume 6 dated 4th October, 1973 especially Notice Number 110 at Pages 198 and 199 has become spent.
(e) An Order directing the 1st and 5th Defendants to jointly and severally yield peaceful possession of the Land of approximately 857.6 acres which was acquired by the Lagos State Government in response to the request from the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing for land allocation for International Trade Fair which Acquisition was properly recorded in the Lagos State of Nigeria Gazette No 16, Volume 6 dated 4th October, 1973 especially Notice 110 at pages 198 and 199 the Public Purpose for which the land was acquired having become spent.
In addition to the Substantive Suit, the Appellants also filed a Motion on Notice for an Order of Interlocutory Injunction on the 31st of July, 2008 as seen Pages 37 – 53 of the Records of Appeal. The Application is seeking an Order of Court for the following:
1. An Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, their Privies, Assigns or Agents, whomsoever and howsoever from the handling over the whole or part of the LAGOS INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR COMPLEX to the 4th defendant as planned pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Suit.
2. An Order of Interlocutory Injunction restraining the 4th defendant from selling, leasing, mortgaging or in any other manner howsoever described from exercising or continuing to exercise any Proprietary Rights in any manner howsoever over and in respect of the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex as a whole or in respect of any part of it pending the hearing and determination of the substantive Suit.
None of the Respondents filed any Statement of Defence. However, the 3rd Respondent who was the 3rd Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 18th of September, 2008 and filed on the 19th of September, 2008.
The 3rd Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection challenged the Jurisdiction of the trial Court on the grounds that the reliefs sought by the Appellants are matters within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court pursuant to Section 251 (1) P and R of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In addition to the Notice of Preliminary Objection, the 3rd Respondent also filed a Counter-Affidavit in opposition to the Appellants’ Motion for Interlocutory Injunction dated 31st of July, 2008 as seen in Pages 82 – 116 of the Records of Appeal. However, the Motion for an Interlocutory Injunction was set down for hearing to a time after the hearing of Notice of Preliminary Objection filed by the 3rd Respondent.
The Notice of Preliminary Objection was argued on the 28th of April, 2009 and the trial Judge upheld the 3rd Respondent’s Preliminary Objection and consequently struck out the Suit on the grounds that claims for an order setting aside the concession granted to the fourth Respondent (then 4th Defendant) and yielding the possession of the land to the Claimant are based on the Federal Government’s Administrative Step in granting the vexed Concessionary Rights to the 4th Defendant.
The Appellant, who was the Claimant, dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court, filed a Notice of Appeal dated 11th of May, 2009 as seen on Pages 139 – 137 of the Records of Appeal. However, a new Notice of Appeal with the substituted Appellants was filed on the 8th of October, 2020. The Notice of Appeal challenged the whole decision of the trial Court on the following grounds:
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the High Court of Lagos State lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s case.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The claims of the Claimant/Appellant do not come within the purview of any of the sub-paragraphs of Section 251 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(b) The lower Court in the premises ought not to have held that the High Court of Lagos State lacked the Jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s case, in view of the position of law as enunciated by our Appellate Courts in the case of ONUOHA VS KADUNA REFINERY AND PETRO-CHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED (2005) 6 NWLR PAGE 825 and other similar cases.
The Appellants sought for the following reliefs as stated in the Notice of Appeal as follows:
“To allow the appeal, set aside the order made by the lower Court on the 28th day of April, 2009 where the lower Court declared that the High Court of Lagos State lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the Claimant’s case.”
The Appellant filed his Brief of Argument dated 30th September, 2011 on the 18th of October, 2017. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents did not file any process. However, the 4th and 5th Respondents filed their Amended Brief of Arguments on 28th of February, 2018 and 31st of May, 2017 respectively. The 5th Respondent’s Amended Brief of Argument was deemed filed on the 24th of September 2020. The Appellants filed a Reply Brief to the arguments of the 4th and 5th Respondents on the 8th of October, 2020.
The Appellant’s sole Issue for Determination is reproduced as follows:
Whether the High Court of Lagos State has the jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s case.
The 4th Respondent in its Brief of Argument raised a sole Issue for Determination:
Whether the High Court of Lagos State (Not being a Federal High Court) does not lack the jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s Suit as perceived, constituted and instituted?
The 5th Respondent adopted the Appellant’s sole issue for determination.
Now, this Court has found out that the issues formulated by the Respondents are substantially similar to the issues formulated by the Appellants, and will therefore adopt the Appellant’s issue as the sole issue to be considered in determination of this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the High Court of Lagos State has the jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s case.
In arguing the issue, the learned Counsel to the Appellant submitted that the reasoning of the lower Court that since what the Appellant challenged by his Suit is an act of the Federal Government, the High Court of Lagos State lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the matter in terms of Section 251 (1) (r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 is not correct. He further submitted that the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is set out in Section 251 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. In determining whether a Suit falls within the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the Subject Matter of the action needs to be examined. He contended that the lower Court was wrong in declining Jurisdiction to hear and entertain the Appellant’s case. The reasoning of the lower Court is that since the act being questioned by the Appellant is that of the Federal Government or one of its agencies, the lower Court which is the State High Court lacks the Jurisdiction to hear the matter as presented before it. He stated that the fact that the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party to a case, or that the Act is that of the Federal Government, would not be conclusive in itself, to clothe the Federal High Court with exclusive Jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s Case. He relied on the cases of TRADE BANK PLC VS BANILUX NIG LTD (2003) 9 NWLR PART 825, ONUOHA VS KADUNA REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED (2005) 6 NWLR PART 825 and NKWUMA VS ODILI (2006) NWLR PART 977. He also relied on the Court of Appeal decision of NIMR VS AKIN-OLUGBADE (2008) 5 NWLR (PT1079) PG 68 AT PAGES 91 – 92.
Learned Counsel to the Appellant further contended that if the trial Court had considered the cases of ONUOHA VS KADUNA REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED and NKUMA VS ODILI, it would not have declined Jurisdiction to hear the matter. He relied on the cases of ELDER SUNDAY OMOTESHO (REGENT) & 9 ORS VS ALHAJI ABUBAKAR ABDULAHI & ORS (2008) 2 NWLR PART 1072 PAGE 526, where this Court held that the mere making of the Federal Government or any of its agencies a party in a proceeding, would not necessarily confer Jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. It is the Subject Matter or Nature of the Suit that determines Jurisdiction. He relied on FEDERAL MORTGAGE BANK OF NIGERIA VS LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT & 4 ORS (2010) 5 NWLR Part 1188 Page 580 to state that the Jurisdiction of a Court is decided on the “Plaintiff’s Claim as endorsed in his Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.”
Further reliance was placed on the decided case law authority of NIMR v NURTW (2010) 12 NWLR (PT 1208) PAGE 328 AT PAGES 351 – 353, where this Court held that the provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended) cannot be interpreted to mean that where a Federal Government or its agency is a party, the Federal High Court is automatically clothed with exclusive Jurisdiction to hear the matter or rob the State High Court of jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Learned Counsel to the Appellant stated that where Paragraphs of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As amended) are triggered, the Court is duty bound to examine not only the parties but the Subject Matter of the Suit. He relied on NATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES VS BUREAU OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES (2010) 7 NWLR PART 1194 PAGE 538. See also ADETAYO & ORS VS ADEMOLA & 2 ORS (2010) 3 – 5 SC.
He concluded by submitting that since the Subject Matter of the Appellant’s action before the lower Court is on land, it is the lower Court that has the Jurisdiction to hear the Appellants’ claim. He urged the Court to allow the appeal by holding that the High Court of Lagos State is vested with the Jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Conversely, Learned Counsel to the 4th Respondent argued in his submissions that it is the duty of the Court to look into the claims of the Plaintiff to determine whether the Subject Matter of the claim is one it can adjudicate on. He relied on FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA VS ADAMS OSHIOMOLE, (2004) 3 NWLR PAGE 305, AT 315, PARAGRAPHS A TO F, ONOURAH VS KADUNA REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICAL LIMITED (2005) VOLUME 6 MJSC, PAGE 137, TANAREWA NIG LTD VS PLASTIFARM LTD (2003) 1 WRN, PAGE 38 AT 58 TO 59.
In his submissions, he stated that where an objection is raised to the Jurisdictional Competence of a Court to determine a Suit, the Court would look at the claim to determine whether it has the Jurisdiction to entertain such Suit. He relied on MUSTAPHA VS GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1987) 2 NWLR (PT58) PAGE 539, TUKUR VS GOVERNOR OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) PG 517. He stated that the foregoing should be juxtaposed with the relevant Constitutional Provisions and the Provisions of Statutes that confers jurisdiction on that Court.
Learned Counsel submitted further that although the Federal High Court was not given a blanket Exclusive Jurisdiction in cases involving the Federal Government and its agencies, by virtue of Section 251 (1) (p) and (r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended), once the relief sought in any action or proceeding is a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action, or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies, or relates to the Administration or the Management and Control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies, the Federal High Court shall have Exclusive Jurisdiction. He relied on NDOC VS OKEM ENTERPRISES LTD (2004) 10 NWLR (PT 880) 107. He also relied on Section 251 (1) (p), (q) and (r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, EKWEDIKE VS ANINWENE (2004) FWLR, PART 218.
He further contended that the Appellants’ Suit against the Respondents is not a case of simple contract and none of the five (5) reliefs sought by the Appellant is a claim for compensation on land or Declaration of Title to Land. He submitted that all the Authorities cited by the learned Counsel to the Appellant do not support the Appellant’s case and as such he has missed the point and understandably and expectedly missed the target.
He argued that from Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Claimant’s Statement of Claim, it is not in dispute that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants are agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria. In addition, the first and second reliefs contained in the Claimant’s claim are declarative reliefs and the fourth relief in the Claimant’s claim is for an order of perpetual injunction.
Learned Counsel to the 4th Respondent further contended that the trial Court was clear on the position of law that the determining factor is the Claim and Reliefs sought by the Claimant and had juxtaposed it with the relevant Constitutional Provisions and the Provisions of the Statutes that confers Jurisdiction on the Court.
Learned Counsel to the 4th Respondent argued that the trial Court was right to have held that the Appellant’s case is for the Declaration of Injunction affecting the validity of an Administrative Action of the Federal Government through the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, who are agencies of the Federal Government, and as such under the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. He observed that the Appellant’s prayers at the lower Court contains both principal and ancillary reliefs. The principal reliefs sought are under exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and the ancillary reliefs are all dependent on the principal reliefs.
Again, learned Counsel to the 4th Respondent stated that in terms of parties and Subject Matter, it is the Federal High Court that has Jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s Suit. Jurisdiction is not acquired in vacuo; rather it is the Constitution (being the Grundnorm) as well as Statute that ascribes Jurisdiction to the Court. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 did not contemplate sharing of Jurisdiction by Federal High Court and the State High Court on matters on the question of validity of an Administrative Decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. He contended that the Provisions of Section 272 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, which ascribes unlimited jurisdiction on the State High Court, is subject to the provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Learned Counsel also contended that Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution is emphatic on the superiority of its provisions over the provisions of Section 272 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended); thus Section 251 unequivocally states that the Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is ‘notwithstanding anything contrary contained in this Constitution’. He therefore argued that Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria clipped the ‘jurisdictional wings’ of the High Courts of the State in matters contained in the section, and forbids it from travelling any distance beyond what it is constitutionally provided.
Learned Counsel to the 4th Respondent surmised finally that since it is the Constitution and Statute that ascribe Jurisdiction to the Court, then a Court cannot go outside its jurisdiction on a voyage of jurisdictional search when its creator which is the Constitution, forbids it from travelling any distance beyond that which is constitutionally prescribed. He further relied on UNIVERSAL TRUST BANK OF NIGERIA LTD VS UKPABIA (2001) FWLR PT 51, NEPA VS EDEGBENRO (2003) FWLR PT 139, PAGE 1556 AT 1569; FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION VS AKINYEMI (2009) ALL FWLR PT 465 P1785.
He concluded by urging this Court to resolve the issue in favour of the 4th Respondent by dismissing this appeal. On the part of the 5th Respondent, learned Counsel submitted on its behalf that the Statement of Claim filed by the Claimant/Appellant has to be critically perused to decide which Court has the jurisdiction to determine the Suit based on the case as constituted by the claimant. The combination of claim endorsed on the Writ and the Statement of Claim as well as the status of the 1st – 3rd Defendants/Respondents, supports the judicial coverage of Section 251(1) (p) (q) and (r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). He relied on OHAKIM VS AGBASO (2010) 19 NWLR (PT 1226) 172, NKUMA VS ODILI (2006) 6 NWLR (PT 977) 587.
He relied on ABIEC VS KANU (2013) 13 NWLR (PART – 1270) to state that there are three (3) ingredients required to determine whether the Federal High Court has the Jurisdiction to hear a Suit.
The three (3) ingredients were stated as follows:
(a) The parties or some of the parties involved in the Suit must be Federal Government or its agency.
(b) The conduct giving rise to the Cause of Action should evolve from Administrative or Management and/or Control of Federal Government or any of its Agencies.
(c) Any action or proceedings 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. He relied on OSAKUE VS FCE ASABA (2010) 10 NWLR (PT 1201) 1, NOSPETCO OIL & GAS LTD VS OLORUNNIMBE (2012) 10 NWLR (PT 1307) 115, NURTW V RTEAN (2012) 10 NWLR (PARTY 1207) 170, OBIUWUEBI VS CBN (2011) 7 NWLR, GASSOL V TUTARA (2013) 14 NWLR (PT 1374) 221
Learned Counsel to the 5th Respondent contended that the Appellants were only frustrated with the concession by the 1st – 3rd Respondents to the 4th Respondent of the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex. They were however aggrieved upon being aware of the letter dated the 9th day of July, 2008, written by the 3rd Respondent to the 4th Respondent, explaining the reasons for the delay in handing over the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex to them. Thus, since they were not displeased with the fact that the Lagos State Government acquired the property, then the appropriate Court to hear the matter is Federal High Court.
Learned Counsel to the 5th Respondent further argued that the act of concession being challenged by the Appellants was an Administrative Decision of Federal Government by the Federal Government Agency. In addition to this, making a Federal Government Agency as a party in challenging this Administrative Act, puts the matter under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as contemplated under Section 251 P, Q and R of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended).
He also contended that the claims of the Appellant, specifically A and B endorsed on the Statement of Claim, sought some declarative reliefs against the aforesaid conduct of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents whilst prayer (D) endorsed on the Statement of Claim sought injunctive relief against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents and all these pushed this Suit to the domain of the Federal High Court.
Submitting further, Learned Counsel to the 5th Respondent stated that the authorities cited by the Appellants to argue the contention that the Subject Matter in this appeal bothers on land are distinguishable and therefore not applicable to the Appellant’s claim. The Appellant neither claimed compensation in respect of the land acquired by the Lagos State Government nor alleged trespass over the land.
Also submitted, Learned Counsel stated that since the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents are undoubtedly; Ministry, Parastatal and Agency of the Federal Government, and any Act done by them classified as the Management and Execution of Federal Government Policy, the Act cannot be accommodated under the cases/judicial authorities cited by the Appellant.
Distinguishing the cases relied on by the Appellant from this appeal, Learned Counsel stated that the case of TRADEBANK PLC VS BANILUX (SUPRA) was where the question of money indorsed on a Cheque was wrongly paid by a third party. The Court in that Case found out that there was no Business Privity between the parties that could have conferred jurisdiction on the Court on the basis of Customer/Bank relationship. The Supreme Court in that case concluded that since it was a Tort of Simple Conversion, it was actionable at the State High Court. From the fact, it was clear that there was no challenge to the Conduct of Administration or Management of the Federal Government or its Agency.
Distinguishing NKUMA VS ODILI (SUPRA) from the instant case, learned Counsel to the 5th Respondent stated that none of the parties in that Suit was Federal Government Agency, neither was the issue therein involved challenging the Administrative decision of the Federal Government agency. The dispute arose from money deposited by the Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited meant for compensation for oil spillage and rival claim of the compensation money between two communities. This does not come within the coverage of Section 251 (i) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Also distinguishing ELDER SUNDAY OMOTESHO (REGENT) VS ABUBAKAR ABDULAHI (SUPRA) from the instant case, learned Counsel stated that the Supreme Court affirmed the Jurisdiction of the State High Court despite the inclusion of the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing and the Attorney General of the Federation, on the grounds that the issue involved did not amount to the Challenge of Management, Control or Administration of the Federal Government or its agency, rather it was an action urging the conclusion of Housing/Statutory Allocation of Grant which had begun by the 5th & 6th Respondents.
In distinguishing ONUORAH V KADUNA REFINERY AND PETRO-CHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED (SUPRA) and FEDERAL MORTGAGE BANK OF NIGERIA V LAGOS STATE GOVERNMENT AND 4 ORS (SUPRA) from the instant case, learned Counsel stated that while the former was a case of Simple Contract, the latter was not the case of challenging the Administrative decision of Government Agency, and the Court therein also held that Federal Mortgage of Nigeria is not an Agency of Government.
Learned Counsel to the 5th Respondent further distinguished this instant case from the case of NMR V NURTW (SUPRA), stating that while that case was for a Declaration of Title to Land, Injunction and Damages, the instant case bothers on challenging the decision of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents to Grant Concession of the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex to the 4th Respondent. This Suit constitutes a challenge to the control, administration and management of Policy of the Federal Government Agency.
Finally distinguishing the Case Law Authorities cited by the Appellant from this instant appeal, learned Counsel to the 5th Respondent stated that the Action in the case of NUEE V BPE (SUPRA) was not made to challenge the Management, Control and Administration of the Federal Government or its Agency but it was the Bureau of Public Enterprise (the Agency of the Federal Government) that was challenging the conduct of the NUEE and as such it is not applicable to this instant appeal. He urged this Court to distinguish those cases from this instant appeal.
Citing Section 39 of the Land Use Act, Learned Counsel to the 5th Respondent argued that the Jurisdiction of the State High Court is only applicable to proceedings in respect of land, and it includes the declaration of a Title to Statutory Right of Occupancy and Proceedings which relates to determining any question as regards persons that are entitled to compensation. There was nowhere in the Appellant’s Writ and Statement of Claim where the Appellant invited the Court to make Declaration to Title over the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex, and further, there was nowhere in the Appellant’s processes where the Appellant invited the Court to make a declaration or order directing payment for compensation.
Finally, learned Counsel to the 5th Respondent stated that the reliefs sought in the Statement of Claim, specifically prayers (a) and (b), are declaratory reliefs against the management, control and administration of the agency of the Federal Government in respect of executed Policy of the Federal Government. Prayer (d) endorsed on the State of Claim is seeking Injunctive Relief against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents from carrying out any act in furtherance of or pursuant to Accomplishing Policy of the Federal Government. The action made out by the Appellants against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents was a Confrontation of the Management, Control and Administration of the Federal Government and its Agency and as such falls under the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. He urged this Court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the Decision of the trial judge.
Conversely, learned Counsel to the Appellant by way of reply to the 4th and 5th Respondents contended that the significance of the Supreme Court decision in the case of ONUORAH V KADUNA REFINERY AND PETRO CHEMICAL LIMITED (supra) is that even if what is being challenged is an act of the Federal Government or any of its agencies, the subject matter of the act being questioned would determine which Court between the State High Court and the Federal High Court will entertain the suit.
Submitting further, Learned Counsel to the Appellant stated that in the case of Onuorah, the Supreme Court decided that notwithstanding the fact that action done is an act of the Federal Government or any of its agencies, the subject matter of the act being questioned would determine which Court between the State High Court and the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case. He relied on CBN VS RAHAMANIYA G.R LTD (2020) 8 NWLR Part 1726 Page 314 where the Apex Court held that the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear matters relating to land disputes. He further relied on the Court of Appeal decision in UACN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CO PLC VS COUNTY CITY & BRICKS DEV CO LTD, CA/L/1073/2011 COMMERCIAL LAW REPORT OF NIGERIA (2020) 4 CLRN.
While reacting to the 4th Respondent, learned Counsel to the Appellant contended that a challenge of an Act of an Agency of Government does not automatically bestow Jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. The basis of the Appellant’s case is that the land of which the complex of the Lagos Trade Fair Complex forms a part is their land, which they own under the Yoruba Customary Law. He argued that the Government never paid compensation as a result of the Acquisition despite Appeals by their late King to do so. The Appellants thereafter became aware that the Public Purposes for which the land was acquired was spent, hence the claim and relief of the Appellants.
He submitted that the issue before the lower Court was therefore a determination of the question of what consequences would follow if the purposes for which private land by the government is spent, and another issue before the lower Court also involves whether compensation was paid to the people of Igbanko when their land was acquired at the first instance and as such the issue can only be determined by the High Court of Lagos State as provided by Section 39 of the Land Use Act.
He concluded that the lower Court was wrong in declining jurisdiction in this case based on mere fact that agencies of the government are parties to the case. Also, the fact that the action being challenged is that of the agency of Government ought not to have led to the conclusion that the High Court of Lagos state lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, because the matter raises an issue of reversionary rights of the appellants.
Now, the importance of Jurisdiction of a Court in any adjudication of a matter cannot be over-emphasized. Without Jurisdiction, the Court will operate in futility. Jurisdiction is the power of a Court to adjudicate on a matter and cannot be underrated for the purpose of litigation. See SALISU V MOBOLAJI (2014) 4 NWLR (PT 1296) 1 AT 6; NSL LTD V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE (2009) 11 NWLR (PT 1152) PAGE 304 AT 306, KURMA V SAUWA (2019) 13 NWLR (PT 1659) PG 247; GT INVESTMENT LTD V WITTBRUSH LTD (2011) 8 NWLR (PT 1250) 500.
In MR JERRY CHUNG BOT & 3 ORS V JOS ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION PLC (2021) 15 NWLR (PT 1798) PAGE 53 AT 61 – 62, the Supreme Court PER MUSA SAULAWA JSC held:
‘’The question of whether or not a Court of law or Tribunal is imbued with jurisdiction to entertain and determine a matter or appeal before it, is not merely important but fundamental to the adjudication process. It is a threshold issue that cannot be compromised or sacrificed at the altar of caprice. This is so because any proceeding or trial conducted by a Court devoid of jurisdiction tantamount to a nullity, ab initio. It is futile to set down issues, deliberate on the evidence led, and resolve points of law raised, if the Court seized of the matter, is devoid of jurisdiction. The substratum of a Court is no doubt jurisdiction. Without it both litigants and counsel on the one hand and the Judge on the other hand labour in vain. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal deemed it expedient in its wisdom to suo motu raise the issue of jurisdiction and consequent upon the addresses of both learned counsel, it proceeded to strike out the appeal on the basis of absence of jurisdiction.’’
From the foregoing, the jurisdiction of a Court is not just important; it is also fundamental to the adjudication of a matter. Without the Jurisdiction, the proceeding becomes a nullity.
Thus, issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time. See OWIE V IGHIWI (2005) LPELR-2846 (SC), DAIRO v. UNION BANK & ANOR (2007) LPELR-913 (SC), OLIYIDE & SONS LTD v. OAU, ILE-IFE (2018) LPELR-43711 (SC), HAMZAT & ANOR v. SANNI & ORS (2015) LPELR-24302 (SC). The main contention of the Appellants in this appeal is that the trial Court was wrong when it held that the High Court of Lagos State does not have the Jurisdiction to entertain the Appellants’ claims. The Appellants contended that their claims do not fall under the Provisions of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended). The Appellants instituted this action at the Lower Court against the Attorney General of the Federation, the Lagos International Trade Fair Management Board and the Bureau of Public Enterprises, amongst others seeking certain reliefs as regards the parcel of land, which was compulsorily acquired by the Lagos State Government on which the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex was built.
To determine whether a Court has the jurisdiction to hear a matter, the claim before the Court as stated in the Writ of Summons or endorsed in the Statement of Claim must be looked at. It is the claim that determines the nature of a Suit. The Courts have held in several case law authorities that the relief sought, the grounds for such reliefs, and the facts relied upon by the Claimant, are factors that determine what the claim is all about. See ADETAYO & ORS VS ADEMOLA (2010) LPELR – 155 SC, WAMBAI VS DONATUS & ORS (2014) LPELR 23303 – SC, OBI VS INEC (2007) LPELR 24347-SC, ADETONA & ORS VS IGELE (2011) LPELR – 159 SC.
A case is fought on the relief or reliefs sought. A case is not fought outside the relief or reliefs sought. It is the Plaintiff’s claim that determines the question of the Court’s jurisdiction. Where Pleadings have been filed, the issue of the Court’s Jurisdiction is best determined from the averments in the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim. Where this is not the case, one has to look at the claim as endorsed on the Writ of Summons. Reliance is placed on Case Law Authorities of CHIEF OHWOVWIOGOR & 3 ORS VS CHIEF OLORI EDJERODE & 5 ORS (2001) NSCQLR VOLUME 8 PAGE 341, NSCQR VOLUME 34 2008 Page 176, OTUN & ORS VS OTUN & ANOR (2004) LPELR-283 2(SC), DR. TAIWO OLORUNTOBA-OJU & 5 OTHERS PROFESSOR P.A. DOPAMU & 6 OTHERS.
This Court in DIKKO YUSSUF VS OBASANJO (2006) EPR VOLUME-2 PAGE 31: – while relying on the decision in MANDARA VS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (1984) 1 SCNLR 311 described how reliefs determines the Jurisdiction of the Court to state thus: –
“Jurisdiction is never conferred in obscurity. The language of the law must be very clear and positive … Jurisdiction is a power clearly visible to all beholders of the constitution and the law that confers it. Microscopic eyes are not required in order to unearth it.”
There is no dispute in this instant case that the Attorney General of the Federation, the Lagos International Trade Fair Management Board and the Bureau of Public Enterprises are defendants at the trial Court and now Respondents in this Court. The trial Court held that it did not have the Jurisdiction to hear the matter, as it is only the Federal High Court that has the competence to hear the matter involving a Federal Government Agency and that the Concession was a decision of Government and a Government Agency. The next task before this Court is to determine whether the claims of the Appellants as found on Pages 2, 6 – 7 of the Records of Appeal can sustain this Decision of the trial Court. In other words, this Court will hereby consider whether the claims of the Appellants are part of the claims envisaged by Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended).
Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) provides as follows:
“(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; and….”
On the face of these Provisions of this Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, it appears that the impression being created is that the Federal High Court has an exclusive Jurisdiction to the exclusion of other Courts, the Original Jurisdiction in any Civil Cause of Proceedings in which the Federal Government or any of its Agencies is a party. However, a close and proper interpretation of the provisions, which are clear and unambiguous, would indicate that it is not the correct position. It is settled in plethora of cases that where words are clear and unambiguous, they should be construed in their literal and ordinary meaning. See the decided Case Law Authorities of GANA VS SDP & ORS (2019) LPELR-47153 (SC), MARWA & ORS VS NYAKO & ORS (2012) LPELR-7837 (SC), ABEGUNDE VS ONDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ORS (2015) LPELR-24588 (SC).
The Supreme Court in WEMA SECURITIES AND FINANCE PLC VS NIGERIA AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE CORPORATION (2015) 16 NWLR (PT. 1484) 93 AT 130 – 131, gave a clear position on this when His Lordship Per NWEZE JSC held:
“In my humble view, while it, rightly, found that the respondent is an agency of the Federal Government, FMBN VS OLLOH (SUPRA), IDONIBOYE-ODU VS N.N.P.C. (SUPRA), its conclusion that the mere presence of that agency of the Federal Government robbed the trial Court of jurisdiction must rankle all liberal constitutional jurisprudents and juridical exegetes. As indicated above, prior to the 1979 Constitution, Section 7 of the Federal High Court Act, Cap 134, LFN, 1990, set out the limited jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Section 251(1) (supra) now delineates the jurisdiction of that Court… and circumscribe it…. to only…. eighteen items… Such matters are, exclusively…. reserved for the Federal High Court…. In effect, the drafts person deliberately itemized the matters, which are intended to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of that Court or simply put, therefore, that Court, is a Court of enumerated jurisdiction and, a fortiori, its exclusive jurisdiction is expressly tied to those items enumerated there-under…. As such, in the exercise of its said exclusive jurisdiction, that Court (the Federal High Court) can only orbit within the universe of those enumerated issues and to others as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly…. However, actions on simple contract are not included in those items enumerated above, Adelekan VS EUC Line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993) 33 at 52; as such, the Court cannot arrogate to itself a jurisdiction only exercisable by the trial Court or a State High Court… on such simple contractual matters as the one which, the appellant tabled before the trial Court.”
From the foregoing, the mere fact that a Federal Government Agency is a party to a matter is not sufficient enough to cloth the Federal High Court with jurisdiction to hear a matter. It is the subject matter of a claim of each case that will determine whether it is a case within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. See ADETAYO & ORS VS ADEMOLA (Supra), WAMBAI VS DONATUS & ORS (2014) (Supra), OBI VS INEC (Supra) ADETONA & ORS VS IGELE (Supra).
For the purpose of clarity, the reliefs sought by the Appellants are hereby reproduced below as could be found on Pages 2, 6 – 7 of the Records of Appeal:
(a) A Declaration that the Public Purpose for which the land approximately 857.6 acres was acquired by the Lagos State Government in response to the request of the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing for Land Allocation for the building of the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex which acquisition was properly recorded in the Lagos State of Nigeria Gazette No 16, Volume 6 dated 4th October, 1973 especially Notice No 110 at pages 198 and 199 has become spent.
(b) A Declaration that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants whether acting jointly or severally or in concert with any other person have no power to grant the Land comprised in the Lagos State Government of Nigeria Gazette No 16, Volume 6 dated 4th October, 1973 especially Notice No 110 at Pages 198 and 199 and/or the edifice known as the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex situate on the said land or any part of it to the 4th Defendant or any other Person by way of Lease, Sale, Concessioning or in any other manner.
(c) An order setting aside the concessioning of the said Lagos International Trade Fair Complex or any part of it located on the land acquired from the people of Igbanko as recorded in the Lagos State Gazette No 16, Volume 6 dated 4th October, 1973 especially Notice 110 at pages 198 and 19 to the 4th defendant by the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
(d) A Perpetual Order of injunction restraining the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants whether acting jointly or severally or in concert with any other person from granting possession or yielding possession of all or any part the edifice known as the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex to the 4th Defendant or to any other person as the public purpose for which the land comprised in Lagos State of Nigeria Gazette No. 16, Volume 6 dated 4th October, 1973 especially Notice Number 110 at Pages 198 and 199 has become spent.
(e) An Order directing the 1st and 5th Defendants to jointly and severally yield peaceful possession of the land of approximately 857.6 acres which was acquired by the Lagos State Government in response to the request from the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Works and Housing for land allocation for International Trade Fair which acquisition was properly recorded in the Lagos State of Nigeria Gazette No 16, Volume 6 dated 4th October 1973 especially Notice 110 at pages 198 and 199 the Public Purpose for which the land was acquired having become spent.
This Court has carefully gone through the Appellants’ reliefs placed before the trial Court and found that while Relief (b), (c), (d), (e) are basically against the decision of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, relief (a) reveals the Ground on which the Appellants are challenging this decision. Thus, the main claim of the Appellants is that the Public Purpose for which the Land of the Lagos International Trade Fair was acquired has become spent. Other claims in this suit are simply ancillary to that. Part of these Ancillaries’ claims is the claim of inappropriate concessioning of the land for the Lagos International Trade Fair Complex by the 1st 2nd and 3rd Respondents to the 4th Respondent, which is an executive or an administrative decision by the Federal Government Agency on behalf of the Federal Government.
The Gravamen of the reliefs is that the public purpose for which the land on which the Lagos International Trade Fair was sited has been spent and as such the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents do not have the powers to grant the disputed land to the 4th Respondent. Therefore, the main claim bothers on the Executive or Administrative Decision of the Federal Government or its Agencies. This being so, a State High Court, certainly does not have Jurisdiction to entertain the principal claim.
Further on this point, this Court is in agreement with the learned trial Judge when he held on page 130 of the Records of Appeal thus:
‘’Thus, the grouse of the Claimant is the Act of the Federal Government in granting a concession of the land to the 4th Defendant. The offending Act, which is the basis of his action, is in this step taken by the Federal Government or its Agency or Agencies. He would not have had any problems – he would not have sought the relief he now seeks- if that step had not been taken. But because it was taken, he seeks redress from the Court because the effect of it is (as he alleges) is that the purpose of the acquisition of the land in the first place, is now spent. The second relief he seeks is particularly instructive in this respect. He wants it declared that the grant of the land to the 4th Defendant is ultra vires the Federal Government.’’
It is clear that the major claim of the Appellants is firmly in the realm of the Federal High Court when due regard is had to the Provisions of Section 251 (r) the 1999 Constitution.
Once it is now clear that the State High Court cannot entertain the Principal Claim of the Appellant, the Question must be asked as to whether the Ancillary Claims therein could be entertained by it?
This question has been answered in many Judicial Decisions of the Apex Court. In EMEJURU V ABRAHAM & 2 ORS (2019) 4 NWLR (part 1663), His Lordship Per GALINJE JSC, held as follows:
“A Court cannot adjudicate over an Ancillary claim if it has no jurisdiction to entertain the main claim if the Ancillary claim will inevitably involve a discussion of the main claim. The Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim for declaration of Title to Land. Therefore, it cannot assume jurisdiction over a claim that is incidental to a main claim of declaration of title. In the instant case, the issue of laying of pipelines, etc. led to the main claim or principal claim which was basically on or related to title to the land in dispute. All other Ancillary Claims or Reliefs could not be granted or determined by the Court, without first of all determining to whom, the main claim of title to the land in dispute inured or to whom amongst the parties the title to the land in dispute belonged or to whom compensation would be paid.”
See also ALHAJI UMARU ABBA TUKUR VS GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PART 117) 51, ADENUGA & ORS VS ODUMERU & ORS (2001) LPELR-130 (SC), EGBUONU VS BORNU RADIO TELEVISION CORPORATION (1997) LPELR-1040 (SC), KAKIH VS PDP & ORS (2014) LPELR-23277 (SC)
It is clear from the foregoing that the State High Court will be somewhat incapacitated from decisively determining the Ancillary claims, because the main claim is the foundation of the Suit and any decision made therefrom would be fruitless.
To this end, this Court finds no merit in the appeal and the decision arrived at the trial Court is accordingly affirmed. The appeal is entered in favour of the Respondent and the appeal is dismissed.
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, J.C.A.: I had the singular privilege to peruse, in draft, the erudite leading judgment delivered by my learned brother, Adebukunola Adeoti Banjoko, JCA. I am in full agreement with the reasoning and conclusion in it. l too visit a deserved dismissal on the appeal. I abide by the consequential order decreed in the leading judgment.
MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.: My learned brother, ADEBUKUNOLA A. I. BANJOKO, JCA, has availed me an advance copy of the lead judgment in this appeal.
Upon going through, I find myself in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein, that the appeal is bereft of merit.
The vex question of whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain matters pertaining to declaration of title to land has since being settled. However, what the instant appeal has presented is not an ordinary land matter. The appeal is about which Court has jurisdiction to entertain dispute concerning the administrative/executive action of the Federal Government and its agencies. My Lord has exhaustively dealt with the issue with the aid of decided authorities and rightly came to the conclusion, to which I am in agreement, that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit before it. I too dismiss the appeal and abide by the order made as to cost.
Appearances:
…For Appellant(s)
…For Respondent(s)
