STANDARD CLEANING SERVICES COMPANY v. THE COUNCIL OF OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE-IFE
(2019)LCN/12892(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 19th day of March, 2019
CA/AK/110/2014
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: JURISDICTION
“Jurisdiction of a Court to adjudicate on a matter is often described as a threshold matter. Once raised it must be heard first and decided quickly. It is so important that it can be raised at any time in the trial Court, on appeal, suo motu, provided parties are heard, and can be raised even at the Supreme Court for the first time. It is a Court’s authority or power to hear an issue and/or the suit. Once a Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a suit and it goes ahead to hear the suit as it had jurisdiction, no matter how well the suit was decided the whole proceedings and judgment would amount to a nullity. See Adegbola V. Osiyi (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) P. 1; APC V Nduul (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) P. 1; Uchegbu V. SPD Co. (Nig) Ltd (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1178) P 285. Jurisdiction of every Court is statutory, it is conferred by the statute which creates it, and may be expanded or extended by specific legislation. Neither the Court nor any of the parties can confer jurisdiction on the Court by conduct, consent or inference and cannot be enlarged by estoppel or waiver. It is the forerunner of the judicial process, cannot by acquiescence, collusion, compromise or waiver confer jurisdiction on a Court that lacks it. Parties do not have the legal right to donate jurisdiction on a Court that lacks it. See APC V. Nduul (Supra); Customary Court of Appeal, Edo State V. Aguele (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 369.” PER MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.
COURT AND PROCEDURE: CRITERIA FOR JURISDICTION IN A FEDERAL HIGH COURT
“…the section is very explicit that for the Federal High Court to have exclusive jurisdiction, the matter must be a civil matter arising from the administration, management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. See the cases of JUTH V AJEH (2007) 1 NWLR, PT 1016, 490 AND ONUORAH V KRPC (2005) 6 NWLR, PT. 921, 393. It is long settled that in considering whether a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the Court is guided by the claim before it” PER PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
STANDARD CLEANING SERVICES COMPANY Appellant(s)
AND
THE COUNCIL OF OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE-IFE Respondent(s)
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
The main and only substantive issue in this appeal is narrow and centered on the fundamental question of jurisdiction of the trial Federal High Court, Osogbo judicial division, Osun State to try the Appellant?s suit filed against the Respondent in a Suit No. FHC/OS.CS/78/11.
The Plaintiff who is, the Appellant in this Court claimed against the Defendant/Respondent as per the amended writ of summons and statement of claim dated and filed on the 7th May, 2013, as follows:
a) An order declaring the Defendant’s Letter of termination of contract dated 2/3/06 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s University null and void.
b) N1 Million (One million Naira) damages against the Defendant for breach of the contract.
c) A declaration that the said contract for the cleaning of zone 5 of the Defendant’s University is still subsisting and alive.
d) An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the profit margin and the cost of materials between December 2005 to March 2006 as agreed between the parties in the Award of contract for the cleaning of zone 5 of the University (Defendant) Estate’s letter; which is the letter of award of contract that was given by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
Pursuant to the rules of the Federal High Court, the parties filed and exchanged their pleadings and the trial took place before Babs O. Kuewumi, J. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge suo motu raised the issue of jurisdiction and ordered the parties to address the Court. Both parties addressed the Court and in a considered Ruling, the learned trial Judge declined jurisdiction and ordered the transfer of the suit to the Hon. Chief Judge of Osun State for determination pursuant to S. 22 (2) of the Federal High Court Act.
The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the said ruling; therefore filed the instant Appeal on a Notice of Appeal dated and filed 10th February, 2014. The Notice of Appeal consist of four (4) Grounds of Appeal and two reliefs sought.
The facts relevant to this appeal are that the Plaintiff a sanitary cleaning company was engaged by the Defendant to clean Zone 5 of the University estate and was issued with a letter containing the terms of the contract.
Prior to the award of the contract in November, 2005, the Plaintiff had been cleaning the Defendant?s campus, zone 5, for 16 years which made the Defendant to award the Plaintiff one of the largest space to clean among the cleaning companies involved. The Plaintiff and other companies were given a probationary period between December 2005 to February 2006 in which the Plaintiff was commended of a good job. Inspite of the good commendation, the Defendant through the Vice Chancellor of the University, terminated the said contract and refused to pay the profit margin between December, 2005 to March, 2006.
The Appellant, in line with the rules of this Court, filed the Appellant?s Brief of Argument dated and filed the 18th June, 2014; and same was served on the Respondent. It was received by one O. T. Shittu (Mrs.) an Assistant Registrar, Legal Unit of the Respondent. The Respondent neglected or failed to file the Respondent?s Brief of Argument even after the lapse of the period allowed under the Rules. Consequently, the Appellant filed a Motion on Notice dated and filed on the 18th November, 2014 praying this Court for an order setting the appeal down for hearing on the Appellant?s Brief only.
After hearing A. E. Fabunmi Counsel on behalf of the Appellant/Applicant on the 21st of September, 2015 this Court granted the Motion as prayed. The Appeal thereafter came up for hearing on the 22nd January, 2019. Mr. Abayomi Fabunmi of counsel on behalf of the Appellant identified and adopted his Brief of Argument as his argument in this Appeal. He submitted a lone issue for determination to wit:
Whether the Federal High Court, Osogbo, Osun State, does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter bordering on the contract between Appellant and Respondent to clean zone 5 of the Respondent?s university?.
The Learned Appellant’s Counsel arguing this issue referred to and copiously produced the provisions of S. 251 (1) (P., q and r) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) which is the same with S. 7 (p, q and r) of the Federal High Court Act. He also cited the cases ofDr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & 4 Ors V. Professor Shuaib O. Abdul-Raheem & 3 Ors (2009) 7 SCM P. 118 at 143; Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & 5 Ors V. Professor P. A. Dopamu & 6 Ors (2008) 4 SCM. P. 108 at 128.
The Counsel contended that the Appellant’s case at the trial Court centres on the breach of contract and among the reliefs sought was a declaration that the breach was unlawful. He also argued that the Defendant is an agency of the Federal Government which conferred on the trial Federal High Court the jurisdiction to try the suit. He relied on NEPA V. Edegbero & 15 ors (2002) 13 SCM P. 78 at 89. That the contract between Appellant and Respondent is also a business relationship and urged us to so hold.
On the meaning of simple contract, learned Counsel cited Nigerian Law of Contract by Sagay, 1989 P.3, Nigerian Law of Contract by Okay Achike, 1972 P. 19 and Sutton and Shannon on Contracts, 1949 (printed in Great Britain) P. 18. He also shows the procedure followed by the Appellant to secure the contract from the Respondent. He contended that the contract can best be described as formal contract and the Federal High Court Osogbo should have jurisdiction to entertain the matter. He urged us to so hold.
Learned Counsel submitted that he was not unmindful of the authorities that Federal High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any claim involving any of the Federal Government agency which the Respondent is one. He cited the case of Senator Rashidi Adewolu Ladoja V. INEC & 3 Ors (2007) 12 SCM (Pt. 2) P. 364 at 384 and 397 and argued that the trial Court wrongly interpreted S. 251 (1) (p, q & r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended); that a Court cannot interpret law to defeat its purpose and intention. He relied on Diokpa Francis Onochie & 2 Ors V. Ferguson Odogwu & 7 Ors (2006) 2 SCM P 95 at 110 – 111.
In conclusion, the Counsel urged us to hold that Federal High Court Osogbo has jurisdiction to adjudicate on his suit and reverse the ruling thereof.
Jurisdiction of a Court to adjudicate on a matter is often described as a threshold matter. Once raised it must be heard first and decided quickly. It is so important that it can be raised at any time in the trial Court, on appeal, suo motu, provided parties are heard, and can be raised even at the Supreme Court for the first time. It is a Court’s authority or power to hear an issue and/or the suit. Once a Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a suit and it goes ahead to hear the suit as it had jurisdiction, no matter how well the suit was decided the whole proceedings and judgment would amount to a nullity. See Adegbola V. Osiyi (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1608) P. 1; APC V Nduul (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) P. 1; Uchegbu V. SPD Co. (Nig) Ltd (2010) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1178) P 285.
Jurisdiction of every Court is statutory, it is conferred by the statute which creates it, and may be expanded or extended by specific legislation. Neither the Court nor any of the parties can confer jurisdiction on the Court by conduct, consent or inference and cannot be enlarged by estoppel or waiver. It is the forerunner of the judicial process, cannot by acquiescence, collusion, compromise or waiver confer jurisdiction on a Court that lacks it. Parties do not have the legal right to donate jurisdiction on a Court that lacks it. See APC V. Nduul (Supra); Customary Court of Appeal, Edo State V. Aguele (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 369.
In the instant case the relevant statute that conferred jurisdiction on the trial Court are the provision of S. 251 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the Federal High Court Act.
In determining whether or not a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter, it is the Plaintiff?s claim or reliefs as endorsed in the writ of summons and statement of claim that will be considered. It does not extend to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence, though it is sometimes necessary for the Court to hear some evidence first for the purpose of determining the issue of jurisdiction. See APC V. Nduul (supra); Onuorah V. KRP Co. Ltd (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393; 1 NWLR (Pt. 272) 445.
The appellant’s suit in this case, as can be seen from the three reliefs endorsed in the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, is predicated on breach of contract. Though the Appellant’s Counsel made several efforts to show that the contract between the Appellant and Respondent was a formal contract and that the trial Court can properly assume jurisdiction over the matter, I have considered the document at page 26 to 27 of the record of appeal, it is a letter of award of contract by the Respondent to the Appellant dated 11th November, 2005; and at page 38 of the said record is a letter of acceptance of the contract by the Appellant. There was no formal agreement executed by the parties in that respect. The contract therefore, in my view, is no more than a simple contract entered between the Appellant and Respondent. The processes to which the Appellant claimed to have gone through in securing the award of contract was the requirement of the Procurements Act, which is binding on all Government agencies and parastatals in awarding contract. Such processes or procedure cannot qualify a simple contract to be formal or one under seal.
A careful perusal of S. 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which set out matters under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court clearly shows that action for breach of contract, such as the Appellant’s claim, is not included in the sub-section. In other words the statutory provisions did not confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court over disputes arising from simple contract. It falls within the residual jurisdiction of the State High Court which has been conferred with unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceeding under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Unlike the State High Court, the Federal High Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction on matters outside that conferred on it by S. 251 of the Constitution 1999 and Federal High Court Act. See Essi V. Nigeria Ports Plc (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1604) 361; Onuorah V. K.R.P. C. Ltd. (supra).
The Appellant’s contention is that the Respondent being a Federal Government Agency can only be sued at the Federal High Court and not State High Court; he cited the case of NEPA V. Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 79 and other decisions that followed it. With due respect, those authorities cited are inapplicable in the present case, because the question whether the Defendant is an agent of the Federal Government has no determinant role when a consideration of the jurisdiction of the Court is being made. This is because the determining factor is the claim, which in this case is one founded on breach of contract.
In Essi V. Nigeria Ports Plc (supra) at 390 per Kekere-Ekun, JSC stated thus:
Where the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is in issue, the mere fact that an agency of the Federal Government is a party is not sufficient, without more to confer jurisdiction on the Court. The Court deciding the issue will also take into consideration the nature and subject matter of claim. It has been held severally by this Court that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court provided for in Section 230 (1) (s) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993 (now Section 251 (1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution) does not extend to dispute arising from simple contracts?. See the judgment of this Court in Appeal No. CA/AK/100/2014 delivered on the 31st May, 2016 and the case of Onuorah V. KRP Co. Ltd (supra).
In the instant case, the trial Judge was therefore right for not assuming jurisdiction on this case which was founded on breach of contract. Consequently, this has resolved the singular issue against the Appellant.
On the whole, having resolved the lone issue raised by the Appellant?s Counsel in this appeal, I find this appeal to be unmeritorious and it is accordingly dismissed by me.
RIDWAN MAIWADA ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft form, the judgment just delivered by my learned brother: Mohammed A. Danjuma, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and final conclusions. The kernel of the issue herein centres on the jurisdiction of the lower Court to hear the suit which metamorphosed into this appeal. A Court of law is invested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when: “1. It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench. 2. The subject matter is within its jurisdiction; and 3. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See OKEREKE V. YAR’ADUA (2008) 12 NWLR (PT. 1100); SARAKI V. FRN (2016) 3 NWLR (PT. 1500); BELLO V. DAMISA (2017) 2 NWLR (PT. 1550) 455.
The law is that, in determining the jurisdiction of the lower Court, a Court considers the parties and subject matter of an action.
I have painstakingly perused the record of the appeal, particularly the writ of summons and the statement of claim. I agree with the lower Court findings that the appellant’s cause of action borders on simple contract which is outside the jurisdictional competence of the lower Court. Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution governs the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and it does not cover simple contract. The relationship between the parties herein is that of simple contract for which the lower Court is not crowned with the jurisdiction to entertain it. See ESSI V. NIGERIA PORT PLC. (2018) 2 NWLR (PT. 1604) 361; SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT V. MINISTRY OF FCT & ORS. (2018); RAHMAN BROTHERS LTD V. NPA (2019) LPELR 46415 (SC).
I equally hold the view that the lower Court was not the forum competens for the determination of the appellant’s action. It is for this and for the fuller reason in the lead judgment of my learned brother Danjuma, JCA that I too dismiss this appeal. I abide by the consequential orders made therein.
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother MOHAMMED A. DANJUMA, JCA. The appeal is pivoted on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. This jurisdiction is governed by SECTION 251 of the 1999 Constitution. For the purpose of this appeal, the relevant provision specifically is SECTION 251 (1) (P). It provides as follows: –
“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
(P) THE ADMINISTRATION OR THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES” (Emphasis mine).
The respondent is a federal university and so is an agency of the Federal Government. Taken literally therefore it may be presumed that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. However, the section is very explicit that for the Federal High Court to have exclusive jurisdiction, the matter must be a civil matter arising from the administration, management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. See the cases of JUTH V AJEH (2007) 1 NWLR, PT 1016, 490 AND ONUORAH V KRPC (2005) 6 NWLR, PT. 921, 393. It is long settled that in considering whether a Court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the Court is guided by the claim before it. See the cases of GAFAR V GOVT KWARA STATE (2007) 4 NWLR, PT 1024, 375 AND TUKUR V GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR, PT 117, 517. From the records and as confirmed by the sole issue submitted for determination by the appellant, the claim of the appellant bordered on contract. In the case of ADELEKAN V ECU-LINE NV (2006) 12 NWLR, PT 993, 33, the apex Court found that by virtue of SECTION 251 of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction in matters relating to simple contracts. See also the more recent case of SOCIO- POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVT V MINISTRY OF FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY & ORS (2018) LPELR – 45708 (SC). Since there is no contention that the claim of the appellant was based on a simple contract, it is the Osun State High Court and not the Federal High Court that is the appropriate venue for the settlement of the dispute between the parties. I therefore agree with the conclusion reached by my learned brother that this appeal lacks merit. I also dismiss it.
Appearances:
Abayomi Fabunmi, Esq.For Appellant(s)
Respondent filed no brief of argument and not represented
For Respondent(s)
