SEPTA ENERGY NIGERIA LIMITED v. OKON MATHEW AWEH USUNGURUA & ORS
(2016)LCN/8413(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Wednesday, the 23rd day of March, 2016
CA/C/478/2014
RATIO
ON THE DEFINITION OF JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction relates to the competence and capacity of a Court to determine a claim placed before it. Without jurisdiction, the exercise of judicial power becomes futile as any such determination without jurisdiction is a fruitless exercise incapable of conferring any legal benefit. JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
DETERMINATION OF A COURT’S JURISDICTION TO PRESIDE OVER A MATTER
To determine whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to determine a specific matter, recourse must be made to the writ of summons and the statement of claim. See IKINE v. EDJERODE (2001) 8 NSQLR 341, TUKUR V. GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (supra), OSIGWE V. PSPLS MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM LTD & 13 ORS (supra) and UMESIE v. ONUAGULUCHI (supra). JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
THE CONSEQUENCE OF OUSTED JURISDICTION OF A COURT
The challenge to jurisdiction in this regard was anchored on the provisions of Section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The provisions go thus: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 causes and matters – (n) mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas); The precursor of the provisions herein and in parimateria with it, is Section 230 (1) (9) of the Defunct Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree 107 of 1993 which was considered by the Supreme Court in SHELL PETROLEUM DEV CO. LTD v. ABEL ISAIAH & ORS (2001) 6 NSCQLR 542 at 551 wherein the apex Court held per UTHMAN MUHAMMED, JSC as follows:From that moment when the Decree was signed into Law the jurisdiction of the State High Court to determine any matter connected with or pertaining to mining and minerals, including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas has been ousted. Once the jurisdiction of a Court to determine a matter has been ousted any further hearing in the matter is indeed null and void because any decision it makes amounts to nothing. JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PAUL OBI ELECHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
SEPTA ENERGY NIGERIA LIMITED Appellant(s)
AND
1. OKON MATHEW AWEH USUNGURUA
2. ETIM ROBERT AWEH
3. JOB DANIEL UDO
(AS REPRESENTING THEMSELVES AND THE PEOPLE OF ABIGHE ADALA UKIM VILLAGE) Respondent(s)
JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is in respect of an appeal against the interlocutory decision of the High Court of Akwa Ibom State, Eket Judicial Division delivered on the 15th October, 2014 by Obot J.
The respondents had taken out a writ of summons against the appellant at the trial Court seeking compensation for acquisition of portions of land said to belong to them on which the appellant had laid gas pipelines. On being served with the originating processes, the appellant filed a statement of defence in which it indicated that it would be objecting to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to adjudicate on the subject-matter of dispute.
?
This was followed up with a formal application seeking the striking out of the suit for want of jurisdiction.
The respondents contested the application and after taking arguments from counsel, the learned trial Judge in a considered ruling delivered as aforesaid on the 15th October, 2014, decided that the subject-matter was within the jurisdiction of his Court and dismissed the said application.
Not pleased with this decision, the
1
appellant invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court via a notice of appeal filed on the 28th October, 2014 containing one ground.
The respondents were duly served with all the necessary processes but failed to file any brief, upon which the appellant sought and was granted leave on the 25th January, 2016 that the appeal be heard on its brief alone.
Thereafter hearing of the appeal was fixed for the 3rd of March, 2016 with a directive that hearing notice be served on the respondents. Hearing notice was effected as directed but the respondents failed to appear in Court or file any brief on the said 3rd March, 2016 upon which the Court proceeded with the hearing of the appeal.
Arguing the appeal, Mr. Iwuoha adopted the appellants brief filed on the 1st July, 2015 as the arguments of the appellant in furtherance of this appeal.
Therein, the learned counsel distilled and formulated the sole issue for determination from the lone ground of appeal as:
Whether the learned trial Judge was right when she held that the claim being one for compensation, the subject matter is within the jurisdiction of the State High Court.
Arguing
2
the said issue, the learned counsel submitted that it is the reliefs and the facts in the statement of claim which determines the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a claim. He referred to TUKUR v. GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 117) 517 AT 549, OSIGWE V. PSPLS MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM LTD & 13 ORS (2009) 1 NMLR 58 AT 68 UMESIE VS ONUAGULUCHI (1995) 12 SCNJ 120 at 131.
He contended that the learned trial Judge made no recourse to the statement of claim of the respondent but confined himself to the reliefs in the writ of summons in arriving at the decision to assume jurisdiction thereby falling into error. He referred to PDP v. SYLVA (2012) 13 NWLR (pt. 1316) 85 at 127 and SHELL PETROLEUM DEV CO. LTD VS ABEL ISAIAH & ORS (2001) 11 NWLR (PT 723) 168 at 178 -179.
He then outlined paragraphs of the respondents, statement of claim which showed that the compensation claimed was for alleged damages caused by the laying of gas pipelines on the plaintiffs’ land and which according to the learned counsel takes the claim to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court pursuant to Section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution (as
3
amended) and Section 7 (1) and (3) of the Federal High Court Act. He referred to SHELL PETROLEUM DEV. CO. LTD v. MAXON (2001) 9 NWLR (pt. 719) 541 at 553-554, CHRISTIAN NWKONTA V. NIGERA GAS COMPANY & ORS (2010) LPELR 3979 and EMEJURU v. ABRAHAM (2008) 3 NWLR (PT 1075) 491 at 498 – 499.
The learned counsel submitted that Section 19 of the Oil Pipelines Act and Section 236 of the Constitution relied on by the learned trial Judge ought to be read with Section 251 (1) (n) of the Constitution and referred to NNPC v. ORHIOWASELE (2013) 13 NWLR (pt. 1371) 211 at 226.
He submitted that the claim for compensation was ancillary to the laying of gas pipelines and accordingly urged the Court to find for the appellant.
Jurisdiction relates to the competence and capacity of a Court to determine a claim placed before it. Without jurisdiction, the exercise of judicial power becomes futile as any such determination without jurisdiction is a fruitless exercise incapable of conferring any legal benefit.
?
To determine whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to determine a specific matter, recourse must be made to the writ of summons and the statement of
4
claim. See IKINE v. EDJERODE (2001) 8 NSQLR 341, TUKUR V. GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (supra), OSIGWE V. PSPLS MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM LTD & 13 ORS (supra) and UMESIE v. ONUAGULUCHI (supra).
In assuming jurisdiction in this case, the learned trial Judge stated as follows on page 46 of the record of appeal:
I have taken great pains to review the Plaintiffs’ writ of summons and the statement of claim. Plaintiffs’ claims in the instant case is for compensation in respect of land acquired by the defendant and for the sum of N500,000.00 as the cost of this action. These claims do not therefore relate:
“…. to any activities or operation of companies engaged in oil, mines, minerals gas exploration, oil fields, natural gas and geological survey which are tied to or fasten to or associated with or is a direct offspring of or have a relationship with any of the foregoing.”
Being claims for compensation, the Court finds that the subject matter of the plaintiff?s claims are matters within the jurisdiction of this Court.
?With due respect to his lordship, a cursory glance at the statement of claim might indicate a different state of affairs
5
directly negating his above assertions. Specifically paragraphs 3-7 of the statement of claim on pages 3-5 of the record of appeal contain as follows:
?3. The defendant is a Limited Liability Company registered in Nigeria and engages in laying Gas Pipelines and is currently laying Gas Pipelines along Uquo-Udung Uko Gas Pipeline Right of Way which passes through two acres of the Claimants’ land referred to in paragraph 2 above in Abighe Adaha Ukim village in Esit Eket Local Government Area, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.
4. Within the claimants’ property known and called Odoro Awawa, are shrines and sacred groves. These are named and known as “Ibiwawa” and “Edohoidung Adahaukim”. Also within the area of land known and called Iko Nsak Obong, are shrines and sacred grooves called “Urruaeba”, “Akpono Nkoyo Esah” and “Aweh mi esinghi”. The claimants aver that by the Defendant’s activities the Defendant has violated these shrines and sacred grooves.
5. By passing the Gas Pipeline through the Claimants’ land the Defendant has caused severe damage to the claimants’ land and has destroyed and altered the character and user of the
6
land. The defendant has further destroyed various cash crops and economic trees upon which the claimants depended in support of their livelihood.
6. The defendant by its pipeline has also deprived the claimants of the use of their land and the claimants are entitled to be paid appropriate compensation.
7. The claimants aver that in order to ascertain the extent of damage and the amount of compensation payable and due to the claimants, they engaged the services of Mike Akpakpan & Associates, Estate surveyors and valuers, to valuate and advise on the compensation due to the claimants as a result of the Defendant’s activities on the claimants’ land.
The challenge to jurisdiction in this regard was anchored on the provisions of Section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The provisions go thus:
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 causes and matters – (n) mines and minerals
7
(including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas);
The precursor of the provisions herein and in parimateria with it, is Section 230 (1) (9) of the Defunct Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree 107 of 1993 which was considered by the Supreme Court in SHELL PETROLEUM DEV CO. LTD v. ABEL ISAIAH & ORS (2001) 6 NSCQLR 542 at 551 wherein the apex Court held per UTHMAN MUHAMMED, JSC as follows:
From that moment when the Decree was signed into Law the jurisdiction of the State High Court to determine any matter connected with or pertaining to mining and minerals, including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas has been ousted. Once the jurisdiction of a Court to determine a matter has been ousted any further hearing in the matter is indeed null and void because any decision it makes amounts to nothing.
The issue is settled, the claim of the respondents herein is for alleged damages arising from the laying of gas pipelines across their land by the appellant. As was held by this Court in EMEJURU v. ABRAHAM (supra), by the provisions of Section 251 (1) (n), the jurisdiction in respect thereof is
8
exclusively within the purview of the Federal High Court.
I must before concluding observe that the attempt of the learned trial Judge to seek refuge for jurisdiction in this case under Section 236 (1) of the Constitution cannot be sustained in the face of the specific provisions of Section 251(1) (n). See ARDO v. NYAKO (2014) 58 NSCQR 639.
In totality therefore I find merit in this appeal and I allow it.
Suit no HEK/37/2013 is accordingly struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
There shall be no order as to costs.
ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in advance a copy of the Judgment delivered by my learned Brother, J.O.K. Oyewole, JCA, in draft form, allowing this appeal.
I agree with his resolution of the sole issue raised on jurisdiction of the lower Court, and have nothing further to add.
I abide by the orders made in the lead Judgment.
PAUL OBI ELECHI, J.C.A.: I have had the singular privilege of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole, JCA.
After reading the said
9
Judgment, I cannot but agree with his reasoning and conclusion considered in allowing the appeal. I adopt same as mine. The appeal has merit and it is hereby allowed. No orders as to cost.
10
Appearances
I. S. IWUOHA,ESQ.For Appellant
AND
NO APPEARANCEFor Respondent
