M-I. NIGERIA LIMITED V. MOSES OMODUEMUKE
(2012)LCN/5398(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 24th day of May, 2012
CA/B/376/06
RATIO
JURISDICTION: IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION
There is no doubt that Jurisdiction is fundamental to the exercise of power by a court in relation to matters before it or as being the life wire to the exercise by a court of its power of adjudication. It is the law that in its determination, the processes to consider is the pleadings of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that shows whether the court has jurisdiction or not.
See: ADEYEMI Vs OPEYORI (1976) 9 – 10 SS 31
ELABAYO Vs DAWODU (2006) 50 WRN 79 PER GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI J.C.A
WORDS AND PHRASES: MEANING OF JURISDICTION
By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it.
Section (1) of the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court provides thus-
By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it. PER GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI J.C.A
MARITIME: MEANING OF MARITIME CLAIMS
Section 2 of this Act defines maritime claims and provides thus:
1). A reference in this Act to a maritime claim is a reference to a proprietary maritime claim or a general maritime claim.
2) A reference in this/act to a maritime claim is a reference To
- A claim relating to …………..
The possession of a ship or
- A claim between co-owners of a ship relating to the possession, ownership operation or earning of a ship.
- ………………..
- a claim for interest in respect of a claim referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection.
3). A reference in this Act to a general maritime claim is a Reference to………..
- ……………
- ……………
- ……………
- ……………
- A claim out of agreement relating to the carriage of goods or persons by a ship or to the use of hire of a ship, whether by charter-party or otherwise.
- A claim for interest in respect of a claim referred to in any of the paragraphs (a) to (t) of this subsection. PER GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI J.C.A
MARITIME LAW: WHEN WILL THE ISSUE OF ADMIRALTY ARISE
In TEXACO OVERSEAS UNLTD VS. PEDMAR LATD. (2002) FWLR (PT.126) PAGE 585
The Supreme Court clearly established when issue of admiralty jurisdiction can arise.
Texaco’s case. The facts are as follows:
The Plaintiff/Respondent is in the business of hiring out ships on charter to companies. The Defendant/Appellant chattered Two (2) vessels from the Respondent for valuable consideration. The Respondent thereafter raised three invoices in respect of the charter agreement (as done in this case). The defendant refuses to pay the total sum of money (as in this case in which the Appellant refused to pay the money on the invoice raised by the Respondent) the Respondent (like the Respondent in this case) filed an action at the High Court of Lagos. The Appellant (like the Appellant in this case) challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate on the matter alleging that the matter is one sounding in Admiralty. The Supreme Court dismissing the appeal held as follows:
Ejiwunmi (JSC) at page 895 paragraphs A-H. Held:
“For the Respondent, it is argued that the facts of this case that led to the action us strictly whether or not a debt for services rendered has been paid by the Appellant to the Respondent, The State High Court upon such facts had jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the parties. With the greatest respect to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. I do not consider that he is right in his submission that this case is one sounding in Admiralty…………….the dispute arose from the failure of the Appellant to pay for Services rendered to it by the Respondent.
At page 898 paragraphs G – H the Learned Justice of Supreme Court held further:
“After due consideration of the facts narrated above, I am in no doubt that the contention of the Appellant that this is a case whose facts are sound in Admiralty cannot be right. This is simply a case of debt owed by the Appellant to the Respondent”.
Also making reference to the Supreme Court decision in Pretrojessica Enterprises Ltd Vs. Leventis Technical Company Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) Page 679 and Aluminum Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs. Nigerian Port Authority (1887) I NWLR (Pt. 57) Page 475 the Erudite Justice of the Supreme Court quoted with Approval the decisions of his Learned Brother thus:
“It is apposite to refer to some of the pronouncements made by some of the Justice of this Court who heard the Appeal. Belgore 3, ISC at page 692…………..
“The mere fact that goods at one stage in their movements had a voyage on a ship is not ipso facto giving rise to Jurisdiction in admiralty for cargo already discharged and only to be collected by the consignee or his agent”.
For in Aluminum Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs Nigeria Ports Authority (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 51) Page 475, this Court held per Obaseki JSC at Pt. 486 G as follow:
It will amount to ridiculous interpretation to say that because the goods had been carried in a ship any claim for damages or loss occurring after completion of the journey by Sea to Apapa accruing anywhere on land falls within the paragraph”
Going further, the Learned Justice held at page 898 paragraph A thus:
In any event, for a claim in Admiralty to arise, the Cargo or goods must still be in the vessel”
It is to be noted from the decisions of the Supreme Court stated above that it is not the law that once a ship as defined in section 25 of the admiralty Jurisdiction Act is involved in any claim it is a claim. In admiralty.
It is to be emphasized that the claim of the Respondent has nothing to do with carriage of goods it is a case of debt owed the Respondent by the Appellant. It is also submitted that the claim of the Respondent asking for the return of the Barge is as a result of the refusal of the Appellant to pay the Accrued rent for the Barge.
In ADELEKAN VS. ECU-LINE NV (2006) All FWLR PART 321 PAGE 1213 which is a case involving the carriage by sea of machine from Belgium to Nigeria, resulted into breach of contract by the Respondent. The Appellant instituted an action in the Federal High Court, Ibadan for breach of contract of carriage of goods by sea and negligent loss of goods.
The Supreme Court per Onnoghen JSC held at page 1226 paragraph E thus:
“The provision of Section 251 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, ….. are very clear and unambiguous. It is the section that confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, which jurisdiction clearly does not include dealing with any case of simple contract or damages for negligence as envisage by the action before the trial Court” (Underline are ours for emphasis)
The Supreme Court subsequently struck out the case from the Federal High Court of want of jurisdiction.
See: also N.M.S. LTD VS. JPE LTD (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 258) PAGE 1193 PER GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI J.C.A
JUSTICES
GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FOLAYEMI OYEYEMI OMOLEYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
M-INIGERIA LIMITED Appellant(s)
AND
MOSES OMODUEMUKE (doing business in the name and style of Jimota & Company) Respondent(s)
GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI J.C.A, (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court sitting in Warri, Delta State delivered on 22nd November, 2005. Ruling is at pages 23 -28of the Record of Proceedings. The Original Notice of Appeal is contained at Pages 29 -31 of the Record of Appeal. By a motion dated 28th November, 2006. The appellant sought the leave of this court to amend its notice and grounds of appeal. Before I set then out let me give the facts of the case that led to this appeal.
The appellant on the 6th of March 2003, under a written contract agreement hire from Respondent a flat top Barge known as Godshold III, The Appellant after inspecting the Barge took delivery of it and made an initial advance payment as rent for the Barge. After the expiration of the rent paid by the Appellant for a yearly advance payment of rent for the said Barge. The Appellant refused to pay the agreed rent for the Barge and also refused to return the Barge to the Respondent.
The Respondent gave evidence on the 18th of July, 2005 and the Appellant. The Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim and their Endorsement are contained at page 1 to 13 of the Records.
The respondent gave evidence on the 18th of July, 2005 and the Appellant’s Counsel commenced cross examination on the same date. Appellant’s Counsel thereafter asked for adjournment to enable him continue cross examination. The Appellant thereafter filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delta State to entertain the suit. Plaintiff’s evidence is at pages 14 to 18 of the Records. Appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection is at page 19 of the Record.
The Notice of Preliminary Objection was dismissed by the Learned Trial Judge on 22nd day of November, 2005. The Ruling of the Trial Court is contained at pages 23 to 28 of the Records”.
The appellant was dissatisfied and appealed to this court. His amended notice of appeal has two grounds of appeal.
“The Appellant on the 6th of March 2003, under a written Contract agreement hired from the Respondent a flat Top Barge known as Godshold III. The Appellant after inspecting the Barge took delivery of it and made an initial Advance payment as rent for the Barge. After the expiration of the rent paid by the Appellant for the Barge, the Respondent sent on invoice to the Appellant for a yearly advance payment of rent for the said Barge. The Appellant refused to pay the agreed rent for the Barge and also refused to return the Barge to the Respondent.
The respondent gave evidence on the 18h of July, 2005 and the Appellant’s Counsel commenced cross-examination on the same date. Appellant’s Counsel thereafter asked for adjournment to enable him continues cross-examination. The Appellant thereafter filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court of Delta State to entertain the suit, Plaintiffs evidence is at pages 14 to 18 of the Records. Appellant’s Notice of Preliminary Objection is at page 19 of the records. The Notice of Preliminary Objection was dismissed by the Learned Trial Judge on 22nd day of November, 2005. The Ruling of the Trial Court is contained at pages 23 to 28 of the Records.
The appellant was dissatisfied and appealed to this court His amended notice of appeal has two grounds of appeal.
GROUND 1
That the trial Judge erred in law when she held contrary to the provision of the admiralty Jurisdiction Act No. 59 of 1991 and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. That the High Court Delta State had Jurisdiction to entertain the claim in this suit.
Particulars supplied.
GROUND 2
The learned trial Judge erred in law when she held that the action falls within the residual jurisdiction of the State High Court.
Particular supplied
In compliance with the Rules of this court briefs of argument were exchanged when the appeal actually came up for hearing on 29/2/12. L.C. OKOLI Esq. of counsel to the appellant leading other Counsel adopted and relied on his appellants brief filed on 29/3/11.
He then urged the court to allow the Appeal. Mr. Agboro of the learned Counsel to the Respondent adopted and relied on the Respondent brief dated 7/3/11 filed on 29/3/11.
The appellant distilled one issue thus:
“Do the facts and circumstance of this case bring it under Admiralty Justice of the Federal High Court?”
He argued that an attempt to determine Jurisdiction must have recourse to the statement of claim.
Refer to – Pa A.K.Y BALOGUN & 3 ORS. VS. ALHAJI SHOLAWO ODE and 4 ORS. (2007) 4 MJSC 76 AT PAGES 85 – 86.
He submitted that from the facts of the case on the Amended Statement of Claim falls on the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
He referred to s. 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999. He submitted that the admiralty Act 59 of 1991 confers Jurisdiction on the Federal High Court and not the State High Court.
He submitted that the plaintiff’s claim as stated in the Amended Statement of Claim are maritime Claim. He referred to the case of:
RMUS GMBH RAILWAY LINES LTD. (1998) 4 SC 73 CHAPTAIN SATAYAN 1 – HULL & 4 ORS. VS. IVORY MERCHANT BANK LTD. (2005) 5 NWLR (PT.760) 397.
He again argued that one other test of determining jurisdiction is the situs or locus in quo or locality of the Res
See: ALUMINIUM MANUFACTURING FACTORY COY (AMC) Vs NPA (1987) NWLR (PT. 51) 475 SC.
In conclusion he urged the court to allow the appeal. In his reply brief he emphasized that the Jurisdiction of the State High Court is ousted.
The Respondent also distilled one issue as to whether from the nature of the Respondent’s Claim. Is it the High Court of Delta State or the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction on this matter? He argued that the claim of the respondent has nothing to do with the determination of any question relating to proprietary interest to the Barge.
The Respondent’s claim has nothing to do with.
“any matter arising from shipping and navigation on any Inland water ways”
The Respondent further argued that he disagreed that once 4ship is involved in a claim of whatever nature, it is only the Federal High Court that has exclusive Jurisdiction. He submitted and he emphasized that the claim of Respondent has nothing to do with carriage of goods. It is a case of debt owed the Respondent.
He concluded that the learned trial Judge was right in law when she held that the action of the Plaintiff/ now Respondent is simply one of breach of contract for the hire of a barge which is not included in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Let me examine the Claim of the Respondent as is shown in his Amended Statement of Claim
“whereof the Plaintiff claim against the Defendant is as follows:
1. the sum of N9,405.000.00 (Nine Million, Four Hundred and Five Thousand Naira) being the accrued rent for the hire of the Plaintiff s Flat Top Barge known as “Godshold” by the Defendant from 6th March, 2004 to 30th September, 2004 at the daily rate of N45,000.00 (Forty Five Thousand Naira).
2. Payment of the daily hire rate of the said Barge at N45,000.00 (Forty five Thousand Naira) from 1st October, 2004 till when the Barge is returned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in good condition.
The return of the said Flat Top Barge known as “Godshold lll” by the defendant to the Plaintiff in
3. The return of the said Flat Top Barge known as “Godshold III” by the defendant tio the Plaintiff in good condition OR alternatively its value which is N45,000,000.00 (Forty Five Million Naira).
4. Interest of 21% per annum on all the sums claimed (excluding the value of the Barge) being General Damages for Defendant’s default to pay the said sums as at when due which has adversely affected Plaintiff s business operations.
There is no doubt that Jurisdiction is fundamental to the exercise of power by a court in relation to matters before it or as being the life wire to the exercise by a court of its power of adjudication. It is the law that in its determination, the processes to consider is the pleadings of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that shows whether the court has jurisdiction or not.
See: ADEYEMI Vs OPEYORI (1976) 9 – 10 SS 31
ELABAYO Vs DAWODU (2006) 50 WRN 79
By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it.
Section (1) of the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court provides thus-
By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it.
The Admiralty Jurisdiction Act number 59 of 1991, clearly and graphically defines the extent of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court section 1(1) of the Act provides thus:
“(1) The Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court (in this act referred to as the Court”) included the following, that is
(a). Jurisdiction to hear and determine any question relating to a proprietary interest in a ship-or air craft or any maritime claim specified in section 2 of this Act.
(b). Any other Admiralty Jurisdiction being exercised by any other Court in Nigeria immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(c). Any Jurisdiction connected with any ship or aircraft which is vested in any other Court in Nigeria immediately before the commencement of this Act,…
(d). Any matter arising from shipping and navigation on Inland waters declared as nation waterways”
Section 2 of this Act defines maritime claims and provides thus:
1). A reference in this Act to a maritime claim is a reference to a proprietary maritime claim or a general maritime claim.
2) A reference in this/act to a maritime claim is a reference To
a. A claim relating to …………..
The possession of a ship or
b. A claim between co-owners of a ship relating to the possession, ownership operation or earning of a ship.
c. ………………..
d. a claim for interest in respect of a claim referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection.
3). A reference in this Act to a general maritime claim is a Reference to………..
a. ……………
b. ……………
c. ……………
d. ……………
f. A claim out of agreement relating to the carriage of goods or persons by a ship or to the use of hire of a ship, whether by charter-party or otherwise.
u. A claim for interest in respect of a claim referred to in any of the paragraphs (a) to (t) of this subsection.
Can the Claim of the Respondent be said to be an admiralty issues under which the Federal High Court will have exclusive jurisdiction?
In TEXACO OVERSEAS UNLTD VS. PEDMAR LATD. (2002) FWLR (PT.126) PAGE 585
The Supreme Court clearly established when issue of admiralty jurisdiction can arise.
Texaco’s case. The facts are as follows:
The Plaintiff/Respondent is in the business of hiring out ships on charter to companies. The Defendant/Appellant chattered Two (2) vessels from the Respondent for valuable consideration. The Respondent thereafter raised three invoices in respect of the charter agreement (as done in this case). The defendant refuses to pay the total sum of money (as in this case in which the Appellant refused to pay the money on the invoice raised by the Respondent) the Respondent (like the Respondent in this case) filed an action at the High Court of Lagos. The Appellant (like the Appellant in this case) challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate on the matter alleging that the matter is one sounding in Admiralty. The Supreme Court dismissing the appeal held as follows:
Ejiwunmi (JSC) at page 895 paragraphs A-H. Held:
“For the Respondent, it is argued that the facts of this case that led to the action us strictly whether or not a debt for services rendered has been paid by the Appellant to the Respondent, The State High Court upon such facts had jurisdiction to determine the dispute between the parties. With the greatest respect to the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. I do not consider that he is right in his submission that this case is one sounding in Admiralty…………….the dispute arose from the failure of the Appellant to pay for Services rendered to it by the Respondent.
At page 898 paragraphs G – H the Learned Justice of Supreme Court held further:
“After due consideration of the facts narrated above, I am in no doubt that the contention of the Appellant that this is a case whose facts are sound in Admiralty cannot be right. This is simply a case of debt owed by the Appellant to the Respondent”.
Also making reference to the Supreme Court decision in Pretrojessica Enterprises Ltd Vs. Leventis Technical Company Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) Page 679 and Aluminum Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs. Nigerian Port Authority (1887) I NWLR (Pt. 57) Page 475 the Erudite Justice of the Supreme Court quoted with Approval the decisions of his Learned Brother thus:
“It is apposite to refer to some of the pronouncements made by some of the Justice of this Court who heard the Appeal. Belgore 3, ISC at page 692…………..
“The mere fact that goods at one stage in their movements had a voyage on a ship is not ipso facto giving rise to Jurisdiction in admiralty for cargo already discharged and only to be collected by the consignee or his agent”.
For in Aluminum Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs Nigeria Ports Authority (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 51) Page 475, this Court held per Obaseki JSC at Pt. 486 G as follow:
It will amount to ridiculous interpretation to say that because the goods had been carried in a ship any claim for damages or loss occurring after completion of the journey by Sea to Apapa accruing anywhere on land falls within the paragraph”
Going further, the Learned Justice held at page 898 paragraph A thus:
In any event, for a claim in Admiralty to arise, the Cargo or goods must still be in the vessel”
It is to be noted from the decisions of the Supreme Court stated above that it is not the law that once a ship as defined in section 25 of the admiralty Jurisdiction Act is involved in any claim it is a claim. In admiralty.
It is to be emphasized that the claim of the Respondent has nothing to do with carriage of goods it is a case of debt owed the Respondent by the Appellant. It is also submitted that the claim of the Respondent asking for the return of the Barge is as a result of the refusal of the Appellant to pay the Accrued rent for the Barge.
In ADELEKAN VS. ECU-LINE NV (2006) All FWLR PART 321 PAGE 1213 which is a case involving the carriage by sea of machine from Belgium to Nigeria, resulted into breach of contract by the Respondent. The Appellant instituted an action in the Federal High Court, Ibadan for breach of contract of carriage of goods by sea and negligent loss of goods.
The Supreme Court per Onnoghen JSC held at page 1226 paragraph E thus:
“The provision of Section 251 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, ….. are very clear and unambiguous. It is the section that confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, which jurisdiction clearly does not include dealing with any case of simple contract or damages for negligence as envisage by the action before the trial Court” (Underline are ours for emphasis)
The Supreme Court subsequently struck out the case from the Federal High Court of want of jurisdiction.
See: also N.M.S. LTD VS. JPE LTD (2005) ALL FWLR (PT. 258) PAGE 1193
In this case I agree with the learned trial Judge that the Respondent’s claim touches the Residual jurisdiction of the State High Court and not a matter for the Federal High Court. While exercising its original jurisdiction the High Court of a State shares Jurisdiction with the other courts in designated areas of the law e.g. Simple Contract. After a full consideration of the case of the Respondent in the High Court, the appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. The Ruling delivered by ONAJITE KUEJUBOLA Judge, Delta State High Court is affirmed. The case is sent back for trial. Costs of N30,000.00 are awarded in favour of the Respondent.
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE. JCA: I had the privilege of reading in draft the leading judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Shoremi, JCA. I agree that this appeal lacks merit for the reasons contained in the said leading judgment. I also abide by the consequential orders including that of costs contained in it.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, (Ph.D) JCA: I have read the lead Judgment just delivered by my learned brother SHOREMI JCA. I agree that the appeal lacks merit. The issues at stake have been dealt with extensively, I therefore reiterate the points made.
The learned trial court was right when it ruled that the Respondent’s claim touches the Residual jurisdiction of the State High Court and therefore not a matter for the Federal High Court. It is trite that while exercising its original jurisdiction the High Court of a state shares jurisdiction with the other courts in designated areas of the law such as simple contract.
In the circumstance, the Judgment of the lower court cannot be faulted by this court, and the result is that I also dismiss the appeal.
I abide by the orders in the lead Judgment including costs.
Appearances
Lotanna Chuka Okoli,
Samuel K. EsugaFor Appellant
AND
Mr. F. I. AgborohFor Respondent
