CHEVRON NIGERIA LIMITED v. IGBEKELE FAMUYE & ORS.
(2011)LCN/4592(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 1st day of June, 2011
CA/B/32/2005
RATIO
JURISDICTION: EFFECT ANY ORDER MADE BY A COURT IN ABSENCE JURISDICTION
Generally where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter its jurisdiction is completely absent over any aspect or step in the matter as any order made without jurisdiction would be void and of no effect. See SALAJI V SHEHU (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.15) 198 at 205. PER CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHETHER A TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTIONAL POWER TO TRANSFER A CASE TO THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT WHERE THE STATE HIGH COURTS HAVE NO JURISDICTION
However, a statute may modify and/or confer jurisdiction with respect to certain procedural steps that may be taken in a matter. This is so because jurisdiction is statutory. I have read Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act 1990 and also Sections 7 (1) (5) and (6) of the Federal High Court Act 2004 which is the most current legislation with respect to the Federal High Court but I do not find anything untoward in the decision of the trial Judge to transfer the suit to the Federal High Court as the court with the appropriate jurisdiction. Indeed Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act 2004 which is a replication of Section 22 (3) of the Federal High Court Act 1990 makes adequate provision for the transfer of cases in respect of which the State High Courts have no jurisdiction to the appropriate Federal High Courts. Therefore, having held that it had no jurisdiction in the suit and that the suit is cognizable at the Federal High Court, the trial Judge was well within its powers under Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act 2004 to transfer the suit to the Federal High Court as it had the jurisdictional power of transfer. PER CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.
JUSTICES:
AMIRU SANUSI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CHEVRON NIGERIA LIMITED – Appellant(s)
AND
1. IGBEKELE FAMUYE
2. A. O. TEBEKAMI
3. A. JEHOMO FRANCIS
4. MAKAJU OBELE
(For themselves and members of AJANDUJO Community) – Respondent(s)
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Respondents as Plaintiffs had filed an action at the Warri Division of the Delta State High Court against the Appellant as Defendant claiming the sum of N18,320,660.00 as compensation for damages caused them during the oil mineral production activities of the Appellant. Pleadings were settled, filed and exchanged. Conceiving that the High Court of Delta State sitting in Warri had no jurisdiction over the matter, the Appellant filed a motion to strike out the matter. The Respondents apparently conceding the point, filed a motion for the matter to be transferred to the Federal High Court which had jurisdiction. Both motions came up before Ehiwaro J. of the High Court of Delta State sitting in Warri. After taking arguments on the motions, the learned trial Judge in his ruling held that he had no jurisdiction but proceeded to transfer the matter to the Federal High Court. This appeal is against that decision transferring the matter to the Federal High Court and instead of striking it out.
Briefs of arguments were filed and exchanged. Learned Appellant’s counsel, Mr. Akpoguma formulated two issues for determination namely:
1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law when he held that the decision of OTUBU (Supra) is in conflict with the decision in the case of CROWNSTAR & CO. LTD V. THE VESSEL MV VALI (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt.639) Page 37 at 46.
2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law in transferring the said suit No. W/367/96 to the Federal High Court relying as he did on the case of OTUBU (Supra) instead of the principles of law laid down in the case of CROWNSTAR (Supra).
For the Respondents’ counsel, Mr. Akpor, the issue is:
“Whether the learned trial Judge has jurisdiction to transfer Suit No. W/367/96 from the State High Court to the Federal High Court, Benin City”.
In my view, the issue identified by Mr. Akpor encompasses those identified by Mr. Akpoguma and more lucidly states it. In his argument, in his brief Mr. Akpoguma, Appellant’s counsel, submitted on this issue, that having held that the State High Court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the learned trial Judge ought to have struck out the matter instead of transferring it on the principle of the decision in OKOYE V NCFC (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 501 at 534 and NDIC V CBN (2002) FWLR (Pt. 99) 1021 at 1041 . He argued that S.22(3) of the Federal High Court Act 1990 which hitherto empowered State High Courts to transfer matters over which they had no jurisdiction to the Federal High Court was no longer available for the purpose in the light of the Provisions of Sections 7(1) (5) and (6) of the Federal High Court (Amendment) Decree (Act) No. 6 of 1991 which had eroded the powers created by Section 22 (3) of the Federal High Court Act 1990 more so when the suit under consideration did not fall within the category of cases envisaged by the Provisions to Section 2 (7) (6) of Act No. 60 of 1991 having been filed long after the commencement of the said Act of 1991 . He argued that the point was considered in the case of CROWNSTAR & CO. LTD V THE VESSEL M.V. ALI (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 639) 47. He argued that the trial Judge was in error when he relied on OTUBU V UNIVERSITY OF JOS (2002) FWLR (Pt. 109) 1717.
In his reply learned counsel for the Respondents, Mr. Akpor, submitted that Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act 1990 gave State High Courts power to transfer matters over which they have no jurisdiction to the Federal High Court where the latter court has jurisdiction in such matters. He relied on the authorities of OMISADE V AKANDE (1987) ALL NLR 285 at 298 – 299 and 305 – 306 and OTUBU V UNIVERSITY OF JOS (2002) FWLR (Pt. 109) 1717 at 1735.
Generally where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter its jurisdiction is completely absent over any aspect or step in the matter as any order made without jurisdiction would be void and of no effect. See SALAJI V SHEHU (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt.15) 198 at 205. However, a statute may modify and/or confer jurisdiction with respect to certain procedural steps that may be taken in a matter. This is so because jurisdiction is statutory. I have read Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act 1990 and also Sections 7 (1) (5) and (6) of the Federal High Court Act 2004 which is the most current legislation with respect to the Federal High Court but I do not find anything untoward in the decision of the trial Judge to transfer the suit to the Federal High Court as the court with the appropriate jurisdiction. Indeed Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act 2004 which is a replication of Section 22 (3) of the Federal High Court Act 1990 makes adequate provision for the transfer of cases in respect of which the State High Courts have no jurisdiction to the appropriate Federal High Courts.
Therefore, having held that it had no jurisdiction in the suit and that the suit is cognizable at the Federal High Court, the trial Judge was well within its powers under Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act 2004 to transfer the suit to the Federal High Court as it had the jurisdictional power of transfer.
In the result, the sole issue in this matter is resolved against the Appellant in favour of the Respondents. The appeal, therefore lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The case is remitted to the Federal High Court Benin for hearing on the merits with cost of this appeal against the Appellant fixed at N10,000.00 (Ten Thousand Naira).
AMIRU SANUSI, J.C.A.: I have read before now the judgment of my learned brother Nwosu-Iheme, JCA. I agree entirely with her reasoning conclusion nothing more to add.
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A.: I have read the lead judgement delivered by my learned brother, Nwosu-Iheme, JCA. I agree with him that this appeal is lacking in merit. I also dismiss the appeal and abide by the consequential orders made in the said lead judgement, including that of costs.
Appearances
V. E. AKPOGUMA with him E. E. OGHONOGHOR For Appellant
AND
A. AKPOR Esq. For Respondent
