NABORE PROPERTIES LIMITED v. PEACE-COVER NIGERIA LIMITED & ORS
(2014) LCN/7029(CA)
RATIO
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENT IS PARTY TO A SUIT
Clearly, from the wording of S 251 (1) partly set out above, only the topics listed therein are made the exclusive preserve of the Federal High Court under that section. In considering the provision of Section 230 (1) (s) of the 1979 Constitution as amended, which is in pari materia with Section 251 (1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution as amended in Achebe v. Nwosu (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt 818) 103 @ 128 F-H, 134-135 F-H, 137 F-H, the Court held thus: “Before the provision of section 230(1) (s) of the 1979 Constitution (as amended) which relates to any action or proceeding for declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies, can be invoked it must be established that the action for which a declaration is sought or which the court is invited to restrain is related to any executive or administrative action or decision of the government or its agency;
Also in Omotosho v. Abdullahi (2008)2 NWLR (Pt 1072) 526 @ 547 D-F the Court held:
“The mere making of the Federal Government or any of its agencies party in litigation does not automatically vest jurisdiction in the Federal High Court by dint of section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, The provision does not confer jurisdiction on parties but on subject matter or nature of the suit. Once such a matter arises, the claim of the plaintiff or claimant must be carefully examined to determine to which of the High Courts, State or Federal jurisdiction belongs”. Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent had submitted that the interpretation of Section 251 (i) (q) (r) (s) and the proviso to the section by the Learned Justices of the Court in the Omotosho case is awkward and runs foul of all known rules of interpretation. Unfortunately, Counsel did not proffer any reasons for such a profound statement! As submitted by the Appellant in his Reply Brief, the Supreme Court recently stated its position on the question whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction once the Federal Government or any of its Agencies is a party to a Suit in Adetayo v. Ademola (2070) 4 MJSC (Pt 1) 106 at 121-122 paragraphs F-B, where that Court held as follows: …although the claim indeed include a declaration and injunction, there is nothing to show that the declaration and injunction being claimed, relate or affect the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. It must be emphasised that the claims of the Plaintiff/Appellant is for declaration …and injunction to protect their possession of the land. The executive and administrative action or decision of the Federal Government and its agency, The Ministry of Works and Housing to compulsorily acquire the parcels of land in dispute is not at all the subject of the action. Thus, as the executive action of the Federal Government in compulsorily acquiring the land in dispute is not being challenged by the Plaintiffs/Appellants in their instant action, there is no opening whatsoever for the Federal High Court to come into the matter in exercise of its original jurisdiction under Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution.”
The Appellant’s submission on this point is correct. The position of the law is that both the parties and the subject matter of the litigation are to be considered in the determination of the issue of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Any lingering doubts about this issue has further been laid to rest by the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed v Ahmed (2013) LPELR-21143 (SC) where the Apex Court observed that the provisions of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution subject to its proviso have conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in all matters within their purview and to do so the facts of the case must involve the Federal Government or any of its agencies. Of course the matters ‘within the purview’ of the Federal High Court are as listed in subsections (a) to (s) of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended. Per Chinwe Eugenia Iyizoba, J.C.A.
