PRINCE E. O. FREGENE & ORS. v. CHEVRON NIGERIA LIMITED
(2012)LCN/5402(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 24th day of May, 2012
RATIO
JURISDICTION: HOW IS THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION DETERMINED
In determining the question of Jurisdiction of court the Court will consider the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.
SEE: A.G FEDERATION VS. GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER (2001) FWLR (PART 32) (PAGE 97). KOTOYE VS. SARAKI (1994) 7 NWLR (PART 317) 414.
The court should consider the writ of summons, statement of claim and facts deposed to in an affidavit. The Statement of Defence is not one of the relevant materials for that purpose. See: USMAN Vs BABA (2005) NWLR (PART 917) 113 ADEYEMI Vs OPEYORI (1976) 9-10 SC 3. PER GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHAT CONFERS JURISDICTION ON A COURT
There is no doubt that the question of Jurisdiction is very fundamental. Courts are creations of statute and it is the statute that created a particular court that will also confer on it jurisdiction.
See: OKULATE Vs AWOSANYA (2000) 1 SC 107.
Where the Jurisdiction of a court over a suit is challenged the court is entitled under S.6 of the 1999 Constitution to consider the claim before it is order to decide whether it has the Jurisdiction to entertain with it. See: ADELEKE Vs OSHA (2005) 15 NWLR (PT.1006) 608 CA
I agree with my learned brother Nweze JCA in the case of OLADIPO Vs NCSB (2009) 12 NWLR (PT.1156) 563 AT PAGE 585 where he says as follows I quote.
“…Before we return to this question, we must first Return to the implication of the drafting technique in Section 251 (supra). The point must be noted that the draftsman of that section painstakingly itemized the subject matters that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. In all, that section vested exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in eighteen major items, see, per Tobi JSC. In OLUTOLA Vs. UNILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR (PT.905) 416, 462. the implication of this technique is that the said court (Federal High Court) is actually a court of enumerated Jurisdiction, that is, a court whose jurisdiction is not only delimited by statute but whose jurisdiction is delineated in relation only to the subject matters enumerated therein.
In would, therefore, amount to wreaking havoc on the express letters and intendment of the said section 251 to construe it as granting the said a carte blanche to deal with every conceivable matter court (that is, beyond those expressly enumerated ADELEKAN Vs ECULINE NV (2006) 12 NWLR (PT.993.33) AT PAGE 52. PER GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE ON MATTER BORDERING ON TORT
Having said so much above and having followed the guiding principles as laid down by the authorities it is my honest opinion that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on matter bordering on tort. The issue has be established by the Supreme Court in ADELEKAN Vs ECULINE NV (2006) 12 NWLR (PT.993), 33 AT 52.
In the case of ADETAYO & ORS Vs ADENIKE & ORS 2010 3-5 SC 1. The Supreme Court held that there is no ambiguity in S.251 (1) of the Constitution dealing with the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. There is nowhere in Act cited above provision where declaration of title to land and injunction in respect thereof which are the claim of the appellants in this instant case are mentioned or including dispute in respect of land.
There is nothing to show that the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court had been included to cover the claim in this appeal. The fact that the Federal High Court has the exclusive Jurisdiction on Civil cases and matters connected with mines and minerals under S.251 (1) of the Constitution does not give a leeway to adjudge a matter about dispute or compensation over land.
See: NKUMA Vs ODILI (2005) 5 NWLR PT 977. 587
OMOTOSHO Vs ABDUIAHI (2008) 2 NWLR PT 1072, 526 PER GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A.
GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Delta state High court presided over by Ohwo F. O. where he concluded after hearing arguments of both the Appellants and Respondent thus:
“A court of law must scrupulously examine the wordings of the relief or reliefs sought in an action in order not to go outside the enabling laws in search for jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a hard matter of law which is donated by the constitution and the statute establishing the court. Where plaintiffs purposely try to avoid to avoid a particular court by cleverly wording their reliefs to appear to confer jurisdiction on a court where the court actually has no jurisdiction the court shall decline jurisdiction to hear the cause or matter.
In the final result, I am in agreement with learned counsel for the Defendant that the issues arising from the averments in the statement of claim of the plaintiffs fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High court. This suit is accordingly hereby struck out and I make no order as to costs”.
The appellant being dissatisfied by a Notice of Appeal dated 5/4/10 appealed to this court.
The fact of the case in the court below are that
The Appellant for themselves and on behalf of the Fregene Family of Arun-Owun sued the Defendant for N100,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) damages for trespass in respect of the Family land of Arun-Owun when sometimes in 1998 the Defendant broke and entered upon the said land and planted several oil wells and dug canals intending to erect Tank farms thereon after clearing some of plaintiff’s Economic trees and crops, without the consent of the Appellants first sought and obtained.
The Appellants further claimed for injunction Perpetual restraining the Respondent from further or continuing the said trespass. However, an alternative claim for the sum of N100,000.00 (one Hundred Million Naira) as compensation was also claimed. See the Writ of Summon of Claim pages.
See the Writ of summons at pages 1-2 of the Records as well as paragraph 17 of the Statement of claim page 5 of the Records of Proceedings.
By a Motion on Notice dated 3rd February 2006 but filed in court on 17/2/2006, the Respondent raised the question of the jurisdiction of the Lower court to entertain the suit. The Respondent had however earlier filed its Statement of Defence before raising this preliminary objection by way of motion. The motion raising this preliminary objection together with affidavit contained on pages 7 to 9 of the Records of Proceedings.
On 28/2/06 the learned trial judge received arguments on jurisdiction of the Court from both counsel and adjourned the Ruling to 8/3/06. The Ruling was indeed delivered that 8/3/06 striking out the appellants’ claim whilst Declining jurisdiction in the following words:-
“The trespass or interference or infringement on which Plaintiffs action is based are matters relating to or arising from mines and minerals including oilfield and oil mining. By the combined effect of section 257 (i) (n) of the 1999 constitution and section 7 (i)(p) of the Federal High Court (Amendment) Decree 1991 now an Act of the National Assembly, Civil Causes and Matters in any form or any degree arising from, or connected with or pertaining to mines and minerals, oil mining, geological surveys and Natural gas have been placed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the State High Court.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx where Plaintiff’s purposely avoid a particular Court By cleverly wording their reliefs to appear to confer jurisdiction on a court where the court actually has no jurisdiction, the Court shall declined jurisdiction for the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs to properly go before the appropriate court seized of the jurisdiction to hear the cause or matter.
In the final result, I am in agreement with the learned Counsel for the Defendant that the issues arising from the averments in the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiffs fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. This suit is accordingly hereby struck out and I make no order as to cost”
When the appeal came up for hearing in this court. Mr. Oweibo Counsel for the appellant adopted and relied on his brief dated and filed on 9/7 /2005. He urged the court to allow the appeal. He further cited the case of ADETAYO Vs ADENIKE 3-5 SC 2010 (PART 1) AT (PAGE 1).
AKPOGUMA Esq. of counsel to the Respondent adopted and relied on his brief dated and filed on 28/8/2009 and he urged this court to dismiss the appeal.
The appellants formulated one issue from the ground of appeal and same was adopted by the Respondent. The only issue is formulated thus:
“Whether the High Court of Delta State lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiffs suit having regards to 5. 257(1) (m) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and S.7(7) of the Federal High Court Act 1991″.
In his argument the appellant restated the claim as drafted by the counsel to the appellant.
He argued that this is a simple claim for trespass but the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the claim is not for mining. It is only that the mining activities of the Respondents infringed on the right of Appellants to possession of the title to land. He relied on NKUMA Vs ODILI (2006) ALL FWLR (PT.313) 24.
He argued that the case only covered compensation and nothing to do with mines and minerals. He relied amongst other authorities on SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMEITT COMPANY LIMITED VS ABEL ISAIAH (2001) FWLR (PT.56) 608 (2001) NWLR (PT.723) 168 AT 168
He concluded that the claim of the appellant is for compensation for trespass and cannot come with such purview. The trial judge failed to appreciate what the cause of action is.
The Respondent in his argument said that the trial judge was right and argued that the very acts of trespass as alleged by the appellant includes the digging up of canals and planting of several oil wells.
He referred to the case of SPDC LTD Vs ISAIAH (2001) FWLR PART 58 AT (PAGE 608). He argued that the learned trial Judge did not err in law when he held that he lacks jurisdiction. He urged this court to dismiss the appeal.
Section 251(1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended provides as follows for emphasis I quote.
”251(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained 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 cases and matters –
(a) relating to the revenue of the Government of the Federation is in which the said Government or any organ thereof or a person suing or being sued on behalf sued on behalf of the said Government is a party;
(b) connected with or pertaining to taxation of companies and other bodies established or carrying on business in Nigeria and all other persons subject to Federal taxation.
(c) connected with or pertaining to customs and excise duties and export duties, including any claim by or against the Nigeria customs service or an; member or officer thereof, arising from the performance of any duty imposed under any regulation relating to customs duties and excise duties;
(d) connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures:
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transaction between the individual customer and the bank;
(e) arising from the operation of the companies and Allied Matters Act or any other enactment replacing that Act or regulating the operation of companies incorporated under the companies and
Allied Matters Act:
(f) any Federal enactment relating to copyright, patent designs, trade marks and passing-off, industrial designs and merchandise marks, business names, commercial and industrial monopolies, combines and trusts, standards of goods and commodities and industrial standards:
(g) any admiralty jurisdiction including shipping and navigation on the River Niger or River Benue and their effluents and on such other inland waterway, as may be designated by any enactment to be an international waterway, all Federal Ports, (including the constitution and powers of the ports authorities for Federal ports) and carriage by sea;
(h) diplomatic, consular and trade representation;
(i) citizenship, naturalization and aliens, deportation of persons who are not citizens of Nigeria, extradition, immigration into and emigration from Nigeria, passports and visas;
(j) bankruptcy and insolvency;
(k) aviation and safety of aircraft;
(l) arms, ammunition and explosives;
(m) drugs and Poisons;
(n) mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas)
(o) weights and measures;
(p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies
(q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies, and
(s) such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other court or not as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly:”
I have considered the issue raised in this case I believe the matter in this appeal is not novel as there are more than enough authorities to guide the courts in the determination of issue on jurisdiction.
In determining the question of Jurisdiction of court the Court will consider the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.
SEE: A.G FEDERATION VS. GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER (2001) FWLR (PART 32) (PAGE 97). KOTOYE VS. SARAKI (1994) 7 NWLR (PART 317) 414.
The court should consider the writ of summons, statement of claim and facts deposed to in an affidavit. The Statement of Defence is not one of the relevant materials for that purpose. See: USMAN Vs BABA (2005) NWLR (PART 917) 113 ADEYEMI Vs OPEYORI (1976) 9-10 SC 3.
There is no doubt that the question of Jurisdiction is very fundamental. Courts are creations of statute and it is the statute that created a particular court that will also confer on it jurisdiction.
See: OKULATE Vs AWOSANYA (2000) 1 SC 107.
Where the Jurisdiction of a court over a suit is challenged the court is entitled under S.6 of the 1999 Constitution to consider the claim before it is order to decide whether it has the Jurisdiction to entertain with it.
See: ADELEKE Vs OSHA (2005) 15 NWLR (PT.1006) 608 CA
I agree with my learned brother Nweze JCA in the case of OLADIPO Vs NCSB (2009) 12 NWLR (PT.1156) 563 AT PAGE 585 where he says as follows I quote.
“…Before we return to this question, we must first Return to the implication of the drafting technique in Section 251 (supra). The point must be noted that the draftsman of that section painstakingly itemized the subject matters that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. In all, that section vested exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in eighteen major items, see, per Tobi JSC. In OLUTOLA Vs. UNILORIN (2004) 18 NWLR (PT.905) 416, 462. the implication of this technique is that the said court (Federal High Court) is actually a court of enumerated Jurisdiction, that is, a court whose jurisdiction is not only delimited by statute but whose jurisdiction is delineated in relation only to the subject matters enumerated therein.
In would, therefore, amount to wreaking havoc on the express letters and intendment of the said section 251 to construe it as granting the said a carte blanche to deal with every conceivable matter court (that is, beyond those expressly enumerated ADELEKAN Vs ECULINE NV (2006) 12 NWLR (PT.993.33) AT PAGE 52.
Having said so much above and having followed the guiding principles as laid down by the authorities it is my honest opinion that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on matter bordering on tort. The issue has be established by the Supreme Court in ADELEKAN Vs ECULINE NV (2006) 12 NWLR (PT.993), 33 AT 52.
In the case of ADETAYO & ORS Vs ADENIKE & ORS 2010 3-5 SC 1. The Supreme Court held that there is no ambiguity in S.251 (1) of the Constitution dealing with the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. There is nowhere in Act cited above provision where declaration of title to land and injunction in respect thereof which are the claim of the appellants in this instant case are mentioned or including dispute in respect of land.
There is nothing to show that the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court had been included to cover the claim in this appeal. The fact that the Federal High Court has the exclusive Jurisdiction on Civil cases and matters connected with mines and minerals under S.251 (1) of the Constitution does not give a leeway to adjudge a matter about dispute or compensation over land.
See: NKUMA Vs ODILI (2005) 5 NWLR PT 977. 587
OMOTOSHO Vs ABDUIAHI (2008) 2 NWLR PT 1072, 526
The trial Judge therefore was wrong to have declined jurisdiction. The appeal is meritorious and the Ruling of the trial Judge delivered on 8/3/06 is set aside. The case is remitted to another Judge of the Delta State Judiciary for trial on merit. Appeal is therefore allowed with cost of N30,000.00 to the Appellant.
OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A.: I have before now been privileged to read in advance the leading judgment prepared and delivered by my learned brother, Shoremi, JCA, I agree with him that there is merit in the appeal and that it should be allowed. I too allow it and endorse the orders contained in the said leading judgment
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph. D) J.C.A.: I have read the lead Judgment just delivered by my learned brother SHOREMI JCA. I agree that there is merit in the appeal and that the trial Judge was wrong to have declined jurisdiction. The Ruling of the trial Judge delivered on the 8th of March 2006 is set aside. The case is remitted to the High Court of Delta State to be tried by another Judge on its merits. I also award N30,000.00 costs to the Appellants.
Appearances
J. O. OweiboFor Appellant
AND
Victor Akpoguma with E. E. OghonoghorFor Respondent
