CHEVRON NIGERIA LTD. V. CHIEF UGWEN ROBERTS ANOR
(2010)LCN/3701(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 15th day of April, 2010
CA/PH/250/2007
RATIO
JURISDICTION: AT WHAT STAGE CAN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION BE RAISED
It is also trite law, that issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, and infact, it can be raised even for the first time, at the appellate and, including the Supreme Court’ See Pan Asian Co. Ltd v. Vicon (1982) 9 SC1; Turkey v. Govt of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt.117) 517; CGG (Nig) Ltd V. Ogu (2005) 8 NWLR (PT. 927) 366; 385 PARA a. PER ISTIFANUS THOMAS, J. C. A.
COURT: WHAT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN MATTERS PERTAINING TO MINES, MINERALS, OIL MATTERS
It is trite law that, where a cause or matter, is arising from, pertaining to or connected with mines, minerals, oil, oil exploration or geophysical surveys, it is only the Federal High Court as created by the constitution of Nigeria in Section 251 that has the exclusive jurisdiction.I am of the considered views, that if the trial judge had painstakingly considered the constitutional provision in Section 251 entirely and Section 7 (1) (n) and (3)of the Federal High Court Act, 2004 and also accepted the doctorine of stare decisis, he would have arrived to the inevitable conclusion that, the State High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit filed by the respondents. PER ISTIFANUS THOMAS, J. C. A.
JUSTICES:
SULIMAN GALADIMA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ISTISFANUS THOMAS Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
EJEMBI EKO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
CHEVRON NIGERIA LTD. – Appellant(s)
AND
1. CHIEF UGWEN ROBERTS
2. MR. ROGERS ENEOTU – Respondent(s)
ISTIFANUS THOMAS, J. C. A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): At the lower court, the respondents as plaintiffs filed a writ of summons against the present appellant as defendant.
The respondents claim as per their Statement of claim is for the sum of N4,835,570.00 for damages to fishing materials loss of fishing time general damages as compensation payable to the plaintiffs (respondents) jointly and severally and on behalf themselves and their communities. namely, Bentubu and Pipeline in Andoni Local Government Area. Rivers State, as a result of the obstruction to the right of fishing way caused by the collapsed mast of the defendant (appellants) in the River of Andoni close to the Ocean.
After the service of the writ on the Appellant, on 3- 12-04, learned counsel filed in Notice of preliminary objection on the ground only that the trial High Court of River State, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate over the suit. Arguments on the preliminary objection were taken, since the issue of jurisdiction had to be resolved first as authourative decision of this appellate and supreme court have stated so, see Ebhodaghe v. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 472; SC; Cherislieb Plc v. Olagbaju (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 863) 342; Chevron (Nig) Ltd v. Lonestar Drilling (Nig) Ltd (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 186; Shell Pet. Dev. Co. (Nig) v. Isaiah (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 168 SC; Fasakia Foods (Nig) Ltd v. Shosanya (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt.987) 126 SC.
The lower court ruled against the Notice of preliminary objection and dismissed same on 26/10/2006. It is against that ruling that, the appellant’ filed its Notice of Appeal on 8th November 2006 containing two grounds of appeal, the appellant filed on 251712007 its brief of argument in which a sole issue is distilled as follows:-
“Whether the High Court OF River State has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.”
The respondent filed on 10/12/2007, a respondent briefs in which they have also raised a sole issue for determination but in different angle, namely:-
wither or not the term “relating to”,”connected with”, “pertaining to”; “arising from” can be imputed to cover Civil Causes and matters in Section 251 ( l) (n) of 1999 Constitution in view of the clear provisions of section 251 ( 1 ) of the said Constitution.”
Based on respondent’s brief, the appellant filed on 21/12/2007′ appellant’s reply brief.
Who the appeal came up for hearing on 9th Feb., 2010, both counsel relied and adopted their respective briefs
The appellant’s argument in the sole issue, is that, the learned trial judge, misdirected himself, when he overlooked the crucial activities that led to the allegation of negligence before he arrived at his conclusion. Appellant is of the view, that, the cause of action filed by the respondents falls within the causes and matters listed under Section 251 (i) (n) of the Constitution of Nigerian, 1999 and Section 7 (i) (n) of the Federal High Court Act’ Cap F12, Laws of Nigeria, 2004. In other words, appellant is of the contention that, the suit appealed against should have been filed at the Federal High Court and not the state High court, whose jurisdiction is not vested to seat and determine matters in connection with oil exploration. In further support of argument, learned counsel has submitted that, the claim of the respondents is for compensatory damages for the negligence of the appellant in not removing its collapsed mast, which abstracted their right of fishing way and damaged their nets. The appellant submitted that, its mast is a device, used in oil exploration, meaning that the alleged negligence if proved, arose from the oil exploration activities of the appellant’ and therefore, it is only the Federal High court that has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear the suit, To support its submission, counsel referred to and relied on this court’s decisions in C.G.G (Nis) Ltd Vs Amaewhule (2006) 3 HWLR (Pt.967) 282, 297. CGG (Nig) Ltd Ogu (2005) 8 NWLR (PT.927 366: Barn, vs. Eric (‘1998) 8 NWLR (PT’ 562) 404; C.G.G SPDC (Nig) Ltd. Vs. Maxon (2001) 9 NWLIT (Pt’ 719) 541.
As earlier stated above, appellant filed on 21st December 2007 appellant’s reply brief. The reply brief is on respondents brief who raised the issue of whether or not, the term ‘relating to”, “connected with”, pertaining to”, “arising from”, can be imputed to cover civil causes and matters in section 251 (i) (n) of the 1999 constitution. The appellant has urged the court to discountenance the respondent sole issue because the reason given by the trial judge on which it is appealed, is that the matter is a tort of negligence, and not one that falls within Section 251 (1) of the Constitution 1999. That therefore for the respondents to lawfully raise and canvass their own version of issue, they ought to have filed a Respondents Notice To Affirm The Judgment of the court Below on Ground other than those relied upon by the Court by giving the notice, specifying the grounds on that Notice- Appellant referred to and relied on other 9 r (2) of the Rules of this court, 2007 and the case of Ibaher v. Barkuro (2007) NWLR (Pt. 475, 487. In concluding the argument in the reply brief, learned counsel has referred to and relied on the provisions of section 7 (3)of the Federal High Court Act where it is provided that the jurisdiction on the Federal High Court under Section 251 (l) of the 1999 Constitution is that :-
“… Shall be construed to include jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues relating to arising from or ancillary to such subject matter.”
Counsel urged this court hold that the words “relating to”, “arising from”, pertaining to” and “connected to”, are applicable in determining the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court irrespective of the of the fact that S.251 (n) of 1999 Constitution does not specifically state so.
The respondent’s brief is mistakenly headed “Respondent’s Reply brief’, and then, when they were served with the appellant’s reply brief’ they is order of filed wrongly, what is called Respondent’s Reply on Point of Law to Appellant’s Reply Brief. This is discountenanced: There is no order of court to file the so called, “Respondent’s Reply on point of Law”‘ Be that as it may, the respondent’s reply brief, filed on 10th December 2007′ having been adopted and relied upon, will be considered for the determination of the appeal.
The respondent’s argument is that there is a world of difference in interpreting the provisions in Section 230(1) (n) of Decree No 107 of 1993 constitution (Suspension and Modification) and Section 251 (1) (n) in the 1999 Constitution. Counsel for the respondents is of the view that in Section 230 (1) (n) of the decree, the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to the civil causes and matters “arising from” (a) s”. but that in section 251 (1) (n) of the l999 Constitution’ the Federal High court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters relating to’ arising from, connected with or pertaining to, are conspicuously absent in paragraph (n) of Section 251 (l ) of the afore said 1999 Constitution. Counsel then submitted that it could not have been a legislative mistake since in the 1999 Constitution, the framers used the same phrase to qualify sections 251 (1)(a), (b) (c) (d) and (c)’ but not to quality S.251 (1)(f), to (s) including (n). That since it was not a mistake of the makers of the Constitution, a court of law can not impute the words “arising from “or ” connected to” “relating to” in sub paragraph (n) of section 251 (1) of the constitution. The respondents are contending that, to amend a stature is not the function of a court of law, but the legislature and relied on the case of Okumagba v. Egbe (1965) all NLR 64, 67; International bank of West African Ltd v. Imano (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 85) 633; Opiti v. Ogbeiwe (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 234) 184.
However, before coming to their conclusion, the respondents have conceded the appellant’s submission that the appellant’s mast is a device used in oil exploration, thus the negligence being alleged by the respondents, arose from the oil exploration activities of the appellant. The respondents have however, turned back again in the second paragraph of their paragraph 3’02 on page 3 of their brief, that the point they are making is that since the negligence arose from the appellant, oil exploration activities’ and not oil exploration activity perse the claims not under the purview of section 251 (1)(n) of the 1999 Constitution; and therefore, the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. The respondents are also of the view that section 7 (1) (n) of the Federal High court relied upon by the appellant has not used the qualifying phrase in Section 251 (1)(n) of the 1999 constitution. The respondents hare argued that’ the wide powers conferred on the State High court by virtue of S.271 (1) of the 1999 constitution, the lower court in this matter also, has jurisdiction to hear the suit instituted, and that, the cases of Barry v. Eric (supra) and SPDC v. Maxon (supra) cited and relied upon by the appellant, were decided specifically on the provisions of section 230 (1) of Decree 107 of 1993 and therefore, Are not relevant for consideration in the Section 251 (1)(n)of 1999 Constitution NWLR (Pt. 646) 530; Izenkwe v. Nnadozie (1953) 14 WACA 361; Tukur v. Govert Gongoro State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt 117) 517.
It is also trite law, that issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, and infact, it can be raised even for the first time, at the appellate and, including the Supreme Court’ See Pan Asian Co. Ltd v. Vicon (1982) 9 SC1; Turkey v. Govt of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt.117) 517; CGG (Nig) Ltd V. Ogu (2005) 8 NWLR (PT. 927) 366; 385 PARA a. In the instant appeal, the respondents, as plaintiffs filed their writ as follows:-
“The plaintiffs claim against the defendant is for the following N4,835,570… For damage or fishing material, loss of fishing time and general damages as compensation payable to the plaintiffs jointly and severally… as a result of the obstruction to the right of fishing way caused by the right of fishing way caused by the collapsed mast of the defendant in THE River of Andoni close to the ocean.”
The respondent’s statement of claim in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 amplify their claims on which the jurisdictional powers of an appropriate court can be ascertained’
The paragraphs read thus:-
“4. The defendant is a Limited Liability Company incorporated in Nigeria and carries on various business including crude hydrocarbon oil processing’ oil prospecting’ exploration and exploitation in and around the Plaintiffs communities and elsewhere.
5. The Defendant erected and maintains a huge mast on the river close to the ocean in Andoni
Local Government Area for its use and to enhance its Productivity.
6. The Plaintiffs say that this huge mast got corroded and for that and some other ancillary reason collapsed into the river and got completely submerged.
7 . The Defendant failed’ neglected and or refused to remove this collapsed mast in good time and neither did it provide any warning signs to guide unsuspecting users of the river in and around where the said mast fell and constituted nuisance.”
From the above quoted writ and statement of claim, I agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that, the respondents complain was to get damages for obstruction of their right way of fishing and the consequent destruction of fishing materials caused by the alleged mast of the appellant in the River Andoni. In determining the claims, the lower court found as at page 4-5 of the record that the respondents were asking that court, to order the appellants to pay damages for the loss they suffered as a result of the destruction of their- fishing materials’ which was caused by the appellant’s collapsed mast in the River Andoni the collapse of the mast, the trial court should have, critically examine its jurisdictional powers vis a vis, the jurisdictional powers of the Federal High court as enshrined in Section 251 (l) (n) of the constitution of Nigeria, 1999 which is in pari material with Section 7 (1) (n) and Section 7 (3) of the Federal High court Act cap F 12, 2004, where they are provided as follows:-
“251( 1 ) Notwithstanding any thing to the contrary 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 (a) (m) mines and minerals (including oil fields’ oil mining’ geological surveys und natural gas…”
The Federal High Court Act Cap F12 (Section 7 (1)(n)&(3)areas follows:-
“7 (l) The Court shall to the inclusion of any other court have original jurisdiction to try civil causes and matters in:-
(a) …. (n) mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil ‘ mining, geological surveys and national gas)
(3) Where jurisdiction’ is conferred upon the Court under subsections (1), (2) and; (3) of this Section, such jurisdiction shall be constructed to include jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues relating to, arising from or ancillary to such subject matter” (Underlined is mine)
In the instant appeal, it is no more in dispute that’ the respondents had the constitutional right to file by writ of summons against that unsavoury result, which resulted in the damage and destruction of their fishing materials and fishing time. The appellant’s collapsed mast that affected the respondents fishing business is actionable. At this Stage, the issue in this appeal is specifically, on which court is the jurisdiction conferred to hear the respondents action able matter? In the case of S.P.D.C.(Nig) Ltd v. Maxon (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.719) 541 at 555 is stated as follows:-
“Any unsavoury result which is actionable in consequence of the activities of companies engaged in operation and relating to prospection in oil mining, minerals’ gas exploration and related to geophysical works or activities’ comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court because, it is so expressly granted by ‘ the 1999 Constitution under Section 251 (1) (n).”
In this appeal, I am of the considered opinion that in this regard, the falling of the appellant’s mast, which is admittedly used in the exploration of fishing industry. Therefore fallen act is actionable, and the only reasonable court to determine the actionable act committed by the appellant is the prerogative of the Federal High Court and not the State High Court. See Shell Pet. Dev. Co. (Nig) Ltd v. Maxon (2001) 9 NWLR (PT.719) 541 AT 555 AND Barry v. Eric (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 562) 404; Compagnie Genrrale De Geophysique (Nig) Ltd Asaagbara (2001) 1 NWLR (Pt. 693) 155.
By virtue of Section 251 (1) (n) of 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, and Section 7 (l) (n) and (3) of the Federal High Court Act, 2004, the Federal High Court shall to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction to try civil causes and matters connected with or pertaining to, mines and minerals including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas, Section 7 (3) of the Federal High Court Act (supra) quoted above has reinforced the original jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to the exclusion of State High Court including the High court of the Federal territory in matters arising from, pertaining to, connected with, and relating to from those activities that are actionable.
It is trite law that, where a cause or matter, is arising from, pertaining to or connected with mines, minerals, oil, oil exploration or geophysical surveys, it is only the Federal High Court as created by the constitution of Nigeria in Section 251 that has the exclusive jurisdiction.I am of the considered views, that if the trial judge had painstakingly considered the constitutional provision in Section 251 entirely and Section 7 (1) (n) and (3)of the Federal High Court Act, 2004 and also accepted the doctorine of stare decisis, he would have arrived to the inevitable conclusion that, the State High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit filed by the respondents. The trial court should have struck out the suit or sent it to the Federal High Court Port Harcourt.
For the above reasons’ the sole issue is resolved in favour of the appellant. The alleged negligence raised by the respondents against the appellant arose in the course of oil exploration and is therefore connected with, pertaining to and relating to oil exploration’
The appeal is meritorious and is hereby allowed by me. I hereby, set aside the ruling of the lower court delivered on 26th October 2006. In its stead, I declared that Rivers State high court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the respondents claim. The case is sent to Federal High court to hear and determine the suit.
costs of N50, 000.00 in favour of the appellant and against the respondents.
SULEIMAN GALADIMA J. C. A.: I have read before now the lead judgment of my Learned Brother THOMAS J CA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion leading to allowing the appeal and setting aside the Ruling of the lower court delivered on 26/10/2006.
The Respondents’ claim at the court below is for the sum of N4,835, 570. 00 for damages to fishing materials, loss of fishing facilities, general damages as compensation payable to the said Respondents jointly and severally and on behalf of themselves and their respective Communities.
in Andoni Local Government Area of Rivers State It was complained that as a result of the obstruction caused by the Appellant’s collapsed mast in the River Andoni close to the ocean, the Respondent fishing ways and channels were adversely affected.
After the service of the writ of summons on the Appellant, their learned counsel filed a Notice of preliminary objection on the ground that the High court of Rivers State lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate over the suit. Arguments on the preliminary objection were taken. The learned trial Judge ruled against the objection. It is against that Ruling that the Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal to this court on two grounds of Appeal. The sole issue identified by the Appellant for determination reads:
“Whether the High Court of Rivers State has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.”
Jurisdiction is as old as the law itself. It is the hub or nucleus of law. Despite several authorities of the apex court and this court on jurisdiction of both the High courts (of states) and Federal High Court still issues of jurisdiction. Take a greater “chunk for judicial time of adjudication,” in both courts. The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court revolves around Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. It covers all those matters listed in the said Section 251. In this short contribution, I am concerned with Section 251 (1)(n). When what is at issue in a case relates to mines and minerals (including oil fields’ oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas), the litigant’s venue for resolving the dispute is definitely the Federal High court. In the case of S.P.D.C. (Nig.) LTD v. TIEBO VII (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt.93l) 439 at 459-460 the Supreme court per OGUNTADE JSC carefully accounted for the legislative history of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court before concluding as follows:
“It is manifest that the state High court lost its jurisdiction to adjudicate in oil matters first on 30th December 1991, under Decree No. 60 1991. However under Decree No. 16 of 1992, the operation of the new section 7 under Decree No 60 of 1991 was suspended.But on 17/11/93 under Decree No 107 of 1993,the jurisdiction to adjudicate on mines and minerals and allied matters was given exclusively to the Federal High court. This remains the position before the 1999 Constitution came into force. Under Section 251 ( 1 ) of the 1999 constitution, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil cause and matter… See also SPDC (Nig.) LTD V. SIRPI-ALASTEEL CONT. LTD (2008) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1067) 128. EMEJURU v. ABRAHAM (2008) 3 NWLR (PT.1075) 491. SPDC LTD V. GOODLUCK (2008)14 NWLR (Pt.1107) 294. In the case of CGG (NIG) LTD V. OGU (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 366 the Respondent filed at action at the High court of Rivers State claiming N3, 120, 000.00 as damages resulting from the Appellants wrongful and reckless acts in breaking and entering into the Respondent’s farmland by cutting several seismic lines leading to wanton destruction of the Respondent’s cash and economic crops, trees fish, juju shrines and farm house. The Appellant filed a motion to have the matter struck out for want of jurisdiction because it arose from shooting of explosive and other geological survey activities in the oil field. The trial High court so found but refused to strike it out for non-compliance with order 24 rule 2 of the High Court of Rivers State (Civil Procedure) Rules l987. The Appellant’s appeal to the court of Appeal was allowed and the case remitted to the High Court for determination on the issue of jurisdiction. The Appellant’s appeal to the Supreme Court was allowed. The court held that based on Section 230 (1) (0) of the Decree No. 107 now Section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 7 (1) (p) Decree No..60 of 199, it was the Federal High Court not the High Court, that possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate over the case.
Section 7 (1) (n) of Federal High court Act cap. FF12, 2004 is in pari material with section25l (1) (n) of the constitution of 1999. The Act provides in S. 7 (1) (3) as follows:
“(3) Where jurisdiction is conferred upon the court under subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section such jurisdiction shall be construed to include jurisdiction issues relating to arising from or anallary to such subject matter”
(Underling for emphasis)
The Appellant’s collapsed mast result in the damage and destruction of the Respondents’ fishing materials and business. No doubt the Appellants acts is actionable. In view of the foregoing decisions, of the apex court Federal High court is the venue for the Respondents to seek their redress.
It is expressly stated in SPDC (NIG.) LTD V. MAXON (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.719) 541 at 555 thus:
“Any unsavory result which is actionable in consequence of the activities of companies engaged in operation and relating to prospecting in oil mining, minerals, gas, explorations and related to geophysical works of activities comes within exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High court because it is so expressly granted by the 1999 constitution under section 251 ( 1 ) (n).
The Respondents’ Pleadings in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of their statement of claim amplify the claims on which the jurisdictional powers of an appropriate court can be ascertained. At pages 4-5 of the record the trial court stated that the Respondents were asking the court to order the Appellants to pay damages for the loss they suffered as a result of the destruction of their fishing materials which was caused by the Appellants collapsed mast in the Andoni River. By appreciating that that activities of the Appellant caused the collapse of the mast, the court below
Should have examined critically its jurisdictional powers vis a vis that of the Federal High Court as enshrined in section 251 (1) (n) of the constitution of 1999 and Section 7(1) (n) and Section 7 (3) of the Federal High court Act (Supra).
For the reasons I have given above and the fuller reasons admirably set out in the leading judgment, which I adopt as mine, I hold that the appeal succeeds. I also set aside the Ruling of the court below delivered on 26/10/2006. Since the Rivers State High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Respondent’s claim, the case is remitted to the Federal High Court for expeditious hearing and determination. I abide by order made as to costs.
EJEMBI EKO, J. C. A.: I read in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, I. THOMAS, J.C.A. I agree that the High court of Rivers state, by virtue of section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution read together with section 7 subsections (1) (n) and (3) of the Federal High Court Act Cap. F.!2, 2004 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim of the Respondents for the Sum of N4,835,570.00 being damages or compensation payable to them on account of the obstruction to Andoni River by the collapsed mast of the Appellant that fell across the said River Andoni, which allegedly deprived the Respondents their fishing rights.
Section 7 (3)of the Federal High Court Act 2004 states-
7. (3) where jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court under sub-section (1.), (2) and (3) of the section, such jurisdiction shall be construed to include jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues relating to arising from or ancillary to such subject matter.
As I stated in my dissenting judgment in SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED V. ELDER MINA LALIBO A ORS CA/PH/58/2003 on 14th July, 2008 section 7(3) of the 2004 Federal High court Act cap F.12 is an interpretation clause designed to fill the lacuna in section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 constitution. The words “relating to, arising from or ancillary to such Subject matter” are not in section 251 (1)(n)of the1999 Constitution.
I agree with the Respondents that there is a world of difference between section 230 (1) (n) of Decree no 107 of 1993 and section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution:, white section 230 (1) (n) of Decree 107 of 1993 has the words arising from; section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 constitution does not have those words’ That is the lacuna being filled by the interpretation clause in section 7(3) of the Federal High court Act cap F.12 of 2004. Therefore’ by virtue of section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 constitution read together with section 7 (1) (n) and (3) of the Federal High Court Act, 2004 the Federal High court, to the exclusion of any other court’ has original jurisdiction to hear and determine civil causes and matters arising from, relating to or ancillary to oil/gas prospecting mining, exploration or geophysical surveys.
I allow the appeal as I adopt the lead judgment including all the consequential orders therein.
Appearances
Mr. A. Enyindah For Appellant
AND
Mr. O. A. A. Shologbade with Mr. N.J. Ogenyi For Respondent
