MRS. MEETING OMAS V. BAROID DRILLING CHEMIC PRODUCTS LTD & ANOR
(2010)LCN/3924(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 5th day of July, 2010
CA/B/250/2006
RATIO
JURISDICTION OF TEN FEDERAL HIGH COURT: WHETHER CLAIMS ARISING FROM OR CONNECTED WITH OR PERTAINING TO INSTALLATION OF PIPELINES, PRODUCING, TREATING AND TRANSMITTING OF CRUDE OIL TO THE STORAGE TANKS FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
In the case of SPDC V. ISIAH (supra) the Supreme Court in finding in favour of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court held inter alia that: “…installation of pipelines, producing, treating and transmitting of crude oil to the storage tanks are part of petroleum mining operations … if an incident happened during the transmission of petroleum to the storage tanks, it can be explained as having arisen from or connected with or pertaining to mines, and minerals including oil fields and on mining. I, therefore agree that the subject matter of the respondents’ claim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court…” See ISIAH at 622 D-E. PER ALI ABUBAKAR BABNDI GUMBL, J.C.A
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT: WHETHER A COURT WILL READILY DENIED ITSELF JURISDICTION IN A CASE WHERE ITS JURISDICTION IS EXPRESSLY OUSTED BY LEGISLATION
It is a well known fact that Courts guard their jurisdiction jealously. As Uwais, C.J.N. observed in A-G., Lagos state v. A-G., Fed. (2004) 18 NWLR (pt. 904) 1 @ 89, – “It is a general principle of law that the court will not readily deny itself jurisdiction unless the jurisdiction is expressly ousted by legislation”. In this case, it is not enough for the Appellant to say that since the 1st Respondent “stores diesel and products used in its operation in the soil and allied industry”, and the 2nd respondent is in the “business of rendering technical and allied services in the oil and gas industry”, her matter must be tried at the Federal High court just like that. For the lower Court to have jurisdiction, the subject matter of her claims must fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, and it is clear that it does not. The lower Court therefore had no other option than to “readily deny itself jurisdiction”, and send it to the proper venue – the state High court. PER AMINA A. AUGIE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MRS. MEETING OMAS Appellant(s)
AND
1. BAROID DRILLING CHEMIC PRODUCTS LTD
2. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES NIG. LTD Respondent(s)
ALI ABUBAKAR BABNDI GUMBL, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Benin Division, delivered on 29/06/2006 in Suit No. FHC/B/C5/109/2005. The claim of the appellant as the Plaintiff, before the lower Court was for an order that the Defendants shall jointly and severally: –
a) Remediate or do remediation of the soil of her piece or parcel of land; and
b) Treat the soil/water/free from contamination.
In alternative to these reliefs the appellant sought for an order that: –
1) The Defendants shall relocate Plaintiff to a new plot of land bought by Defendants with Plaintiffs’ consent/approval/participation within the same Sedco Road, Enerhen Area, and built up to decking level which level Plaintiff has built up to and was or only to be compelled to stop by Defendants’ acts complained of;
Also in a further alternative relief the Plaintiff/Appellant sought for;
– the Defendants pay to the Plaintiff the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only.
The Defendants entered appearance and filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit of the Plaintiff against the defendants. The ground of the preliminary objection was predicated on the subject matter of the suit being outside the ones cognizable by the lower Court under the 1999 constitution. This preliminary objection was duly argued by respective learned Counsel. In its ruling, the lower Court upheld the objection and declined jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant. Also, the lower Court relied on S.22(2) of the Federal High court to transfer the Suit to the Delta State High court.
The Appellant was dissatisfied with the whole of this decision/ruling and appealed to this Court in a notice of appeal dated and filed on 12/07/2006. The notice of appeal contains 2 grounds of appeal. Upon these grounds of appeal, learned Counsel to the appellant filed a brief of argument dated 29-09-2006.
The Respondents were duly served with the Appellant’s brief of argument on 15th January, 2007 but they failed to file their response to it. Upon the application of the Appellant, this court made an order on 3rd February, 2010 that this appeal be heard and determined on the Appellant’s brief alone. During the hearing of the appeal before us on 11th May, 2010, learned Counsel to the Appellant identified, adopted and relied on his brief of argument dated and filed on 20-09-06.
In the appellant’s brief of argument, learned Counsel Mr. Anibor formulated 2 issues for the determination of this appeal. They are: –
1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that it is the High court of Delta state and not the Federal High court that has jurisdiction to try and determine the claims of the Appellant against the Respondents.
2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in invoking on his own motion the Petroleum Act 1960 and the Oil Pipeline Act of 1956 and coming to a decision on the said Acts or raw without hearing the Appellant.
In arguing the 1st issue learned Counsel began by underscoring the 2 main reasons why the lower Court declined jurisdiction to entertain this action. He identified them as the appellant’s claim being a mere tortuous act arising from the escape of or storage of Oil/Petroleum products and also the Respondents not being holders of a mining license. Against this background learned Counsel submitted that in deciding as it did, the lower court read into S.251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution what it does not contemplate or contain.
Further to this learned Counsel referred to S.272 of the 199 Constitution and explained that it does not allow the Delta State High Court the power to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under S.251 (1) (n). Based on this explanation, learned Counsel submitted that the claim before the lower Court was well within its jurisdiction and urged this Court to so hold and decide.
In arguing the 2nd issue, learned Counsel pointed out that in the course of its ruling, the lower Court referred to both the Petroleum Act 1960 and Oil Pipelines Act 1956. He then remarked that Counsel did not refer to these statutes in the course of addressing the Court on the notice of preliminary objection. Upon this he contended that, as it turned out that references to this statute engendered an adverse effect on the appellant, Counsel ought to be fully heard on their effect and application before the decision was taken. He maintained that he was not afforded the opportunity of a hearing before the lower Court gave its adverse decision. He referred to the case of HABIB NIG. BANK LTD V. NASHTEX NIG LTD (2006) ALL FWLR (PT.326) 311 at 329 A-C and urged this Court to set aside the decision of the lower Court.
On this latter issue, though the Kaduna Division of this Court in the case of HABIB BANK (supra) re-stated and emphasized the well-settled and defined position of the law that a Court should not raise an issue suo motu and resolve same without hearing the parties, that decision was clearly quoted out of con and cannot be applicable to the facts and circumstances of this appeal. I say so for one main reason. Learned Counsel Mr. Anibor, in the course of his response to the arguments on the preliminary objection referred to the case of SPDC NIG. LTD V. ISIAH (2001) FWLR (PT.56) 608 at 612 ratio 3. This is in the penultimate paragraph on page 24 of the record of appeal. A careful reading of the case of ISIAH (supra) will show that the Oil Pipeline Act 1956 and Petroleum Act 1960 are among the statutes that were referred to and considered in the judgment of the Supreme Court.
In the HABIB NIG. BANK case (supra) the decision was based on the failure of the learned trial Judge to confine himself to the application before him by raising the issue of the appointment of an independent valuer suo motu without affording the learned Counsel for the parties the opportunity to address him on the point or issue before reaching a decision on the matter. In the circumstances of this appeal, no issue was raised suo motu at all for the need of Counsel to address the Court to arise. Therefore all the arguments of learned Counsel on issue No. 2 are totally unfounded, a misconception and without any substance. This issue is hereby resolved against the appellant.
On issue No. 1, in the statement of claim, the appellant referred to the 1st Defendant/Respondent as carrying on “its business (sic) stores diesel and products used in its operation in the oil and allied industry” Also, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent is referred to as carrying on “the business of rendering technical and allied services in the oil and gas industry”.
From the pleadings, the Defendants/Respondents were said to be in occupation of wide expense of land which shares a common boundary with the Appellant’s piece of land. The claim before the lower Court was to be predicated on the allegations that petroleum based products were discharged by the Defendants/Respondents onto the Plaintiff/Appellant’s land without regard to the stipulated procedures for the disposal of same.
In the case of SPDC V. ISIAH (supra) the Supreme Court in finding in favour of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court held inter alia that:
“…installation of pipelines, producing, treating and transmitting of crude oil to the storage tanks are part of petroleum mining operations … if an incident happened during the transmission of petroleum to the storage tanks, it can be explained as having arisen from or connected with or pertaining to mines, and minerals including oil fields and on mining.
I, therefore agree that the subject matter of the respondents’ claim falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court…” See ISIAH at 622 D-E.
In that case the appellant was trying to repair a damaged oil pipeline by cutting off the damaged portion and installing a new section. It was in the course of that exercise that the pipeline broke and oil spillage ensued.
I do not see how the features of that case in any way whatsoever bear any significant similarity with the facts pleaded in this matter as to hold that the far reaching decisions therein would be applicable here. This issue too must be resolved against the appellant. This appeal is totally bereft of any merit and it is hereby dismissed. In consequence of this, the decision of the lower declining jurisdiction to entertain suit No. FHC/B/CS/109/2005 is hereby affirmed and it is accordingly struck out. I make no order for costs.
AMINA A. AUGIE, J.C.A: I have read before now the read Judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Gumel, JCA, and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion.
It is a well known fact that Courts guard their jurisdiction jealously. As Uwais, C.J.N. observed in A-G., Lagos state v. A-G., Fed. (2004) 18 NWLR (pt. 904) 1 @ 89, – “It is a general principle of law that the court will not readily deny itself jurisdiction unless the jurisdiction is expressly ousted by legislation”. In this case, it is not enough for the Appellant to say that since the 1st Respondent “stores diesel and products used in its operation in the soil and allied industry”, and the 2nd respondent is in the “business of rendering technical and allied services in the oil and gas industry”, her matter must be tried at the Federal High court just like that.
For the lower Court to have jurisdiction, the subject matter of her claims must fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, and it is clear that it does not. The lower Court therefore had no other option than to “readily deny itself jurisdiction”, and send it to the proper venue – the state High court. There is no question that the appear lacks merit.
In the circumstances, I also dismiss the appeal. I abide by the consequential orders in the lead Judgment, including that on no cost.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D) J.C.A: I have read before now the lead Judgment of my learned brother ALI ABUBAKAR BABANDI GUMEL JCA. I agree that this appeal is totally devoid of merit, and ought to be dismissed. The decision of the court below declining Jurisdiction to entertain Suit No. FHC/B/CB/109/2005 is affirmed, the said Suit is struck out, and I make no order as to costs.
Appearances
For Appellant
AND
For Respondent
