THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE(2017)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE

In The Supreme Court of Nigeria

On Friday, the 15th day of December, 2017

SC.876/2015(R)

RATIO

IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATION

In a plethora of authorities, this Court has held that jurisdiction is a threshold issue and live-wire that determines the authority of a Court of law or tribunal to entertain a case before it. It is only when a Court is imbued or conferred with the necessary jurisdiction by the Constitution and/or law that it will have the judicial power and authority to entertain or adjudicate upon any cause or matter brought before it. The absence of such requisite jurisdiction would render any proceedings conducted by such a Court an exercise in futility, null, void and of no effect whatsoever, no matter how well conducted. See Musaconi Ltd v Mr. Aspinall (2013) LPELR 2074 5 (SC), NDIC v CBN (2002) LPELR 2000(SC), 2002 7 NWLR (Pt 766) 273, B.A. Shitta Bey v A.G. of Federation & Anor (1998) LPELR 3055 (SC), (1998) 10 NWLR (pt 570) 392, Salisu & Anor v Mobolaji & Ors (2013) LPELR – 22019 (SC). The importance of jurisdiction is the very reason why it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, be it at the trial, on appeal to the Court of Appeal or even in this Court. It must be noted that the Court can suo motu raise issue of jurisdiction. Once it is apparent to any party that the Court may not have jurisdiction, it can be raised even viva voce. It is in the interest of justice to do so. See Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd v Leventis Technical Co. Ltd (supra) Popoola Elabanjo & Anor v Chief (Mrs.) Ganiat Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (pt 1001) 76, Kotoye v Saraki (1994) 7 NWLR (pt 357) 414 at 466. PER OHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

DUTY OF THE COURTS TO EXAMINE THE ISSUES IN THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE ISSUES SOUGHT TO BE VENTILATED BEFORE IT ARE WITHIN ITS JURISDICTIONAL COMPETENCE

…the issue of jurisdiction of a Court to try a suit is a fundamental and threshold one. This is so because if a Court has no jurisdiction to determine a subject matter of the suit or that the parties are not subject to the jurisdiction of that Court, the proceedings thereof are and remain a nullity however well conducted and the judgment brilliantly written and eloquently delivered. It behoves every Court, including the Apex Court to carefully examine the issues in the statement of claim to determine whether the issues sought to be ventilated before it are within its jurisdictional competence. In essence, jurisdiction is a radical and fundamental prerequisite for adjudication. See Alhaji Hashimu Garba Matari & Ors v Ahmadu Dangaladima & Anor (1993) LPELR 25714 (SC), (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt 281) 266, Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR, 34, Francis Nwanezie v Nuhu Idris & Anor (1993) LPELR 2104 (SC), (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt 279) page 1. PER OHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 232 (1) AND (2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 [AS AMENDED] WITH RESPECT TO THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

I shall now examine the law under which the Supreme Court derives its Original jurisdiction. This is provided for in Section 232 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 [as amended] which provides:- 232 (1) The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other Court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether) of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. (2) In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Subsection (1) of this section, the Supreme Court shall have such original jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by any Act of the National Assembly Provided that no original jurisdiction shall be conferred upon the Supreme Court with respect to any criminal matter. The above constitutional provision on the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria appears clear and unambiguous. Thus, for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction in a civil case under Section 232 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the following must exist. That is to say: [1) there must be a dispute between the Federation and a State or States or between States; (2) the dispute must involve a question of law or fact or both and (3) the dispute must pertain to the existence or extent of a legal right. See A.G. of the Federation v A.G. of Abia State (2001) LPELR 24862 (SC). As was pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the defendant/applicant, Section 232 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (supra), while creating in personam jurisdiction over the Federation and the State or States, limits substantially the subject matter jurisdiction to only disputes between the Federation and a State or between States. It is therefore, not just any dispute that this Court can exercise its original jurisdiction. The subject matter of the dispute must involve the interest of the Federation as a unit and a State or States. The question may be asked: what is the meaning of Federation ? By Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), “Federation” is defined as “the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” The word Federation or Federal Republic of Nigeria is further explained in the said Constitution for the avoidance of doubt. Section 2 (1) and (2) of the said Constitution provide: “2 (1) Nigeria is an indivisible and indissoluble sovereign State to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory.” Simply put, the word Federation means Federal Republic of Nigeria which presently consists of 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory called Abuja. It follows that for a dispute to come within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the subject matter of the dispute must be a matter in which the interest of the Federation as a unit consisting of the interest of the thirty six (36) States and the Federal Capital Territory is in issue. In the instant case, the interest of the thirty five other States (excluding Anambra State) and the Federal Capital Territory in the control over and development of the Amansea land in Anambra State must be paramount and clearly seen in the statement of claim. This is so because in determining the jurisdiction of the Court it is the statement of claim which the Court has to look into where the action is commenced by the filing of statement of claim. See Omnia Nig. Ltd v Dyktrade Ltd (2007) LPELR – 2641 (SC), (2007) 15 NWLR (pt 1058) 576, Akauve Moses Osoh & Ors v Unity Bank PLC (2013) LPELR – 19968 (SC), (2013) 9 NWLR (pt 1358) P. 1, Felix Onuorah v Kaduna Refining & Petrochemical Co. Ltd (2005) LPELR – 2707 (SC), (2005) 6 NWLR (pt 921) P.393. PER OHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

POSITION OF THE LAW ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE “FEDERATION” OR “FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA” AND “GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERATION” OR “FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.”

It must be noted that there is a clear difference between the “Federation” or “Federal Republic of Nigeria” on the one hand and “Government of the Federation” or “Federal Government.” Whereas the Federation refers to the federating units comprising of all the States and the Federal Capital Territory, the Federal Government or Government of the Federation refers to the Executive arm of the Government which contrasts with the Legislative powers and judicial powers domiciled in the National Assembly and the judiciary respectively. See Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended, A.G. Kano State v A.G. Federation (2007) 6 NWLR (pt 1029) 164 at 184 – 185 paras H B. PER OHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.

STATUTORY PROVISION AS TO WHETHER THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT EXTENDS TO DISPUTE BETWEEN AN AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND A STATE OF THE FEDERATION

From the statement of claim and its relevant paragraphs, references to the plaintiff are pertaining to the Federal Government or the Executive arm of Government of the Federation which references are distinct from the Federation which carries with it all its three arms of Government. Also important to note is that the subject matter of the dispute is the right of control of Amansea land in Anambra State which the plaintiff claimed it acquired through the instrumentality of the Anambra State Government clearly within the ambit of the Land Use Act. I shall quote the relevant Section thereby being Section 39(1) and (2) thus: 39(1) The High Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in respect of the following proceedings- (a) Proceedings in respect of any land the subject matter of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor or deemed to be granted by him under this Act, and for the purpose of this paragraph, proceedings include proceedings for a declaration of title to a statutory right of occupancy; (2) All laws including rules of Court, regulating the practice and procedure, the High Court shall apply in respect of proceedings to which this Section relates and the laws shall have effect with such modifications and would enable effect to be given to the provisions of this Section”. I am at one with the position canvassed by learned Senior Advocate, Dr.lkpeazu that no matter how the case has been presented or shrouded, the pith of the case is the existence of a dispute over the proposed Site and Services Scheme of the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development which is an agency of the Federal Government. The acts of agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria are not covered by Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 251 of the CFRN has made ample provisions for the ventilation of such grievances. For clarity I shall refer to the case of: A.G. KANO STATE v A.G FEDERATION (2007) 6 NWLR (pt.1029) 164, the Supreme Court of Nigeria stated the clear position of the law at pages 184 to 185 (Para H to B) thus: “I have already stated earlier in this judgment that Section 212 of the 1979 Constitution under which the word ‘Federation’ was defined is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution now under consideration. I therefore respectfully, adopt the definition of the word ‘Federation’ in Section 232 of 1999 Constitution as bearing the same meaning as the ‘Federal Republic of Nigeria’. By this meaning of course all the complaints of the plaintiff in its statement of claim in the present case must be viewed as being against the Federal Republic of Nigeria in order to bring the case within the purview of Section 232 of the Constitution. In other words, any complaints against the Government of the Federation or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf like the Inspector General of Police or authority on its behalf like the Inspector General of police as asserted by the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff in his address before this Court, are completely outside the original jurisdiction of this Court”. Further at page 188 (Para-G) the Court categorically held thus: “The venue for the settlement of such dispute lies elsewhere with various Courts of first instance whose original jurisdiction are clearly outlined in the same 1999 Constitution. It may be appropriate to observe at this stage that the original jurisdiction of this Court under Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution must be distinguished with the original jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251(1) (p),(q) and (r) dealing with actions against the Federal Government or any of its agencies where the same Constitution states:. “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- (p) The administration or 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 of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.. having regard to these plain provisions of the Constitution, I am of the strong view that, to accede to argument of the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff to entertain the present action would result in reducing the status and function of this Court to that of the Federal High Court, quite contrary to the spirit and intention of the Constitution which assigned the limit of powers and jurisdiction to be exercised by each Court created by it”. See also A. G. ABIA STATE v A.G. FEDERATION (2007) NWLR (Pt.1029) 200. Indeed there is no need belabouring a narrow point as from all that is before the Court, what is really the grouse of the plaintiff for which it has come to Court does not concern the Federation but rather a matter of concern for the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development as an agency of the Federal Government. Therefore it is outside the purview of the disputes as contemplated by Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria upon which the original jurisdiction of the Court can be initiated. That being the case there is no jurisdiction in this Court to do more than to say it lacks jurisdiction in its original form to adjudicate on the matter as presented by the plaintiff. Therefore the only option open to this Court is to strike out the suit based on a lack of jurisdiction. PER MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

JUSTICES

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

JOHN INYANG OKORO Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria

Between

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA Appellant(s)

AND

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE Respondent(s)

OHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Ruling): This is Ruling on motion on notice dated 28th February 2016 but filed on 29th February 2016 by the defendant/applicant. The said motion, which is brought, pursuant to Section 232 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Section 97 and 99 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act, prays for the following reliefs
FOR AN ORDER pursuant to Section 232 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the dispute does not involve Nigeria as a Federation on the one hand and Anambra State Government on the other, but rather involves a dispute between the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development over allocation of land made by the Governor of Anambra State.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE:
ii FOR AN ORDER pursuant to Section 97 and 99 Sheriff and Civil Process Act setting aside the writ of summons and all other processes served on the Defendant at the office of the Attorney General Anambra State, Awka Anambra State on the ground that

(a) The Writ

of summons and the Statement of Claim were not marked for service outside Abuja being the seat of the Court.
(b) The Writ of Summons did not accord the Defendant the mandatory period of not less than 30 days within which to enter appearance.
IN THE FURTHER ALTERNATIVE AND IN THE EVENT OF THE COURT NOT GRANTING (1) AND (11) ABOVE:
(iii) FOR AN ORDER of extension of the time within which the Defendant may be allowed to enter appearance and file the requisite defence to this suit.
And for such orders or further Orders as the Supreme Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.”

The grounds upon which the application is anchored are that:
“i. Based on the facts disclosed on the Statement of Claim, there is no dispute between the Federation and Anambra State Government.
ii. The Court processes served on the Defendant especially the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim served on the Defendant’s office in Awka, Anambra State were not endorsed for service outside Abuja.
iii. The Defendant was not allowed a period of not less than 30 days to enter appearance and file the necessary papers in defence.
iv. Defendant

is questioning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to adjudicate over the matter and thus did not comply with the directive of the writ of summons as regards entering appearance.

In support of the motion is an eight paragraphs affidavit deposed to by Obinna Onya Esq., Legal Practitioner in the Law firm of lkpeazu Chambers handling this matter for the defendant/applicant. Exhibit AG1, AG2 and AG3 are annexed to the supporting affidavit filed on 29/2/16 along with the motion on notice. Applicant also filed further affidavit on 17/7/17. On 24/2/17, the applicant filed written address and a reply on 3/3/17. At the hearing of this motion on 26/9/17 which was moved by learned senior counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, leading others for the defendant/applicant, he urged the Court to grant the application and strike out the suit.

On behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN, with other counsel with him, identified a counter affidavit of six paragraphs filed on 9/5/16 deposed to by Godwin Iyinbor Esq., counsel in the law firm of Mike Ozekhome Chambers. He also filed a written address on 24/2/17 in opposition to the motion of the

defendant. He adopted and relied on these documents and urged the Court to refuse the application

A brief facts leading to the filing of this motion will throw more light on the application.

By an endorsement on the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 9th November, 2015, the Plaintiff being the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria while invoking the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, prayed as follows:
“17. (a) A Declaration that the 148.337 Hectares of land at Amansea, Awka North Local Government Area, Anambra State, comprising Federal Government sites and services scheme, Amansea/Awka was lawfully acquired by the Federal Government of Nigeria in 1992, under the Land Use Act of 1978 (as amended).
(b) A Declaration that the Federal Government of Nigeria had duly paid the required compensation that was assessed to the knowledge of and active collaboration with the Anambra State Government.
(c) A Declaration that the Federal Government of Nigeria had duly granted Statutory Rights of Occupancy to her Allotees and Development Partners’ members of the public and Original land owners to the

knowledge of and active collaboration with the Anambra State Government.
(d) A Declaration that the Revocation of the Federal Government of Nigeria’s Right and interest over the said Federal Government Sites and Services Scheme, Amansea/Awka, measuring 148.337 Hectares of land by the Anambra State Government vide a Public Notice dated 1st September, 2014, is wrongful, unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever as same is neither supported by any extant law in force in Nigeria, nor done for any justifiable reasons
(e) A PERPETUAL IN]UNCTION restraining the Anambra State Government whether by itself, its agents, servant, representatives, or privies, howsoever, from further interfering with the right and interests of the Federal Government of Nigeria and her Allotees and development partners over the said Federal Government Sites and Services Scheme, Amansea /Awka,
(f) A Declaration that the purported Revocation of the Federal Government of Nigerias Right and Interests over the said Federal Government Sites and Services Scheme Amansea/Awka, measuring 748.337 Hectares of land by the Anambra State Government, vide a Public Notice dated

1st September, 2014, is null, void and of no effect whatsoever as the Plaintiff was never served the purported Notice of Revocation as required by the Land Use Act, 1978.
(g) A Declaration that the purported Revocation of the Federal Government of Nigeria’s Rights and Interests over the said Federal Government Sites and Services Scheme, Amansea/Awka, measuring 148.337 Hectares of land by the Anambra State Government, vide a Public Notice dated 1st September, 2014, is null, void and of no effect whatsoever, since the Defendant merely purportedly assigned same Sites and Services Scheme to profit-driven Private Developer, and not for any public purpose howsoever.
(h) 50 Billion Naira only being Exemplary and Aggravated Damages suffered by the Federal Government of Nigeria by the unconscionable actions of the Defendant resulting in disruptions of the lawful activities of the Federal Government of Nigeria and her Allotees aid Development partners over the said Federal Government Sites and Services Scheme at Amansea/Awka, Anambra State.
(i) Cost of the Suit.

According to the Defendant/Applicant, the writ of summons which was filed in Abuja, was

served on her at the office of the Attorney General, Ministry of Justice, Awka, Anambra State. That the writ of summons gave the Defendant twenty-one (21) days within which to enter appearance and that the writ of summons was not endorsed for service on the Defendant at Awka, Anambra State.

Based on the above facts, the Defendant filed this motion on notice on 29/2/16 as I have earlier set out in this Ruling.

In the written address of the Defendant/applicant filed by Dr. Onyechi lkpeazu, SAN, based on the facts as contained in the statement of claim and the prayers in the motion on Notice, three alternative issues have been formulated for the determination of this application. The three alternative issues are as follows:
“1. Whether the suit before the Supreme Court which is essentially a dispute between the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and the Governor of Anambra State over the control of land in Amansea town, Anambra State is a dispute between the Federation of Nigeria and Anambra State so as to come within the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
In the alternative
2. Whether Sections

97 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act extend to endorsement and service of Writ of Summons initiated at the Supreme Court
In the further alternative:
3. If issues 1 and 2 are resolved against the Defendant/Applicant, whether the Defendant/applicant is entitled to the indulgence of the Court to file the requisite Court processes in defence of the suit.”

Also, in the written address of the Plaintiff/Respondent filed by learned Senior Counsel, Chief Mike A. A. Ozekhome, SAN, three issues are also nominated for the determination of this application. The issues are as follows:
1. Whether this suit as presently constituted, is proper before this Court in relation to the parties herein having regards to the provisions of Sections 232 (1) and 318 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 20 of the Supreme Court Act.
2. Whether Sections 97 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act are applicable to this suit brought before the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
3. Whether having regards to the provisions of Order 2 Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, the service of the Originating process on the defendant was properly effected”

I shall determine this application on the three issues donated by the defendant/applicant, starting with the first issue. This issue concerns and relates to the Original jurisdiction of this Court. Where the first issue succeeds, there may not be any need to consider the other two alternative issues.

It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant/applicant that from a calm appraisal of statement of claim, shorn of all the camouflage or customery, the dispute in this case involves the control of land in Anambra State. He argued that the contest is essentially between the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and the Governor of Anambra State. He submitted that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not extend to a contest such as this. The learned Silk opines that notwithstanding its enormous and imposing powers, the Supreme Court remains a creation of statute with its powers confined within the precinct of the enabling law, in this case, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). He cited Section 232 (1) and (2) of the said Constitution (supra).

The learned Senior

Counsel further submitted that in determining whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as constituted, the totality of averments in the statement of claim has to be considered. He also submitted that this Court can also consider all the documents availed the Court by the plaintiff/respondent in various affidavits evidence supplied in the file of the Court relying on the case of Agbaisi v Ebikorefe (1997) 4 NWLR (pt 502) 630 at 648 paragraphs D-E.

It is a further submission of the learned Senior Advocate that for the dispute in the instant case to come within the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the subject matter of the dispute must be a matter in which the interest of the Federation as a unit consisting of the interest of the thirty five other States and the Federal Capital Territory is an issue which is not the case here. He argued that there is a clear difference between the “Federation” and the Government of the Federation or Federal Government. It is his view that all references to the Plaintiff in the statement of claim are indeed references to the Federal Government.

Referring to paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the

statement of claim, the learned Silk submitted that no matter how the case has been presented or shrouded, the pith of the case is the existence of a dispute over the proposed Site and Services Scheme of the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development which is an agency of the Federal Government. That acts of agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria are not covered by Section 232 (1) of the 1999 Constitution [as amended). According to him, Section 251 of the Constitution has made ample provisions for the ventilation of such grievances, relying on the cases of A.G. Kano State v A.G. Federation (2007) 6 NWLR (pt 1029) 164 at 184 – 185 paragraphs H – B, A.G. Abia State v A.G. Federation (2007) 6 NWLR (pt 1029) 200 –

Referring to Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F and G annexed to the affidavit in support of the plaintiff’s motion for interlocutory injunction which same exhibits are annexed to the further affidavit of the defendant/applicant in support of the instant motion, he submitted that these exhibits have obliterated all doubts as to the parties to the dispute which does not include the Federation of Nigeria. He urged this Court to grant this

application and hold that the Supreme Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit as presently constituted.

Responding to the above argument, the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN submitted that this suit as presently constituted is proper before this Court with respect to the parties herein and that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain same. He however agrees with learned counsel for the applicant that for any party to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, under Section 232 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (supra), such matter must be between the Federation and a State or between two States. In paragraphs 5.4 of their written address, learned Silk submitted that “a dispute arose on the 1st day of September, 2014, when the Defendant purportedly revoked the Federal Government’s land measuring approximately 148.337 hectares, situated at Amansea, Awka North Local Government Area, Anambra State. As to the meaning of dispute, he referred to the case of A.G. Anambra State v A.G. Federation (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt 1047) Page 4.

Learned senior counsel submitted that it is statement of

claim of the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court and in this case paragraphs 8 and 9 thereof. He relies on the case of Omnia Nig. Ltd. v Dyktrade Ltd. (No 2) (2007) 7 SC 44 at 79 – 80. On conditions which must exist before the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be ignited, he refers to the case of A.G. Anambra State v A.G. Federation (supra), A.G. Lagos v A.G. Federation (2014) LPELR -22701 (SC).

The learned Silk invites the Court to take a look at exhibits A, B, C, K, Q and R in paragraphs 16 (a), (b), (c), (k), (q) and (r) in the plaintiff/respondent’s statement of claim because they form the fulcrum upon which the legal rights in issue in this matter arose.

On whether the dispute in this suit is between the Federation and a State, learned Senior Advocate referred to Sections 5, 148, 318 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Section 18 of Interpretation Act and submitted that the Minister of the Federation who was appointed in line with Section 147 of the 1999 Constitution cannot be said to be acting for the Federal Government but for the Federation or Government of the

Federation and consequently all such actions taken by the Hon. Minister of Lands, Housing and urban Development cannot be interpreted otherwise. He relies on the case of A.G. Kano State v A.G. Federation (2007) 6 NWLR (pt 1029) 164. On the principle of interpretation of statutes, the learned Silk relies on the cases of B. M. Ltd. v Woermann – Line (2009) 13 NWLR (pt 1157) 149, A.G. Lagos v A.G. Federation (supra).

In furtherance of his argument, the learned Silk submitted that from the provisions of Sections of the 1999 Constitution, although executive powers of the Federation are conferred on the President, such powers can either be exercised by him directly or through the Vice President or Minister of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. He contends that the President in exercising the powers conferred on him either by himself or through the Vice President or any Minister of the Federation is exercising such powers therein for the entire federation.

Learned senior counsel submitted that the case of A.G. Kano State v A.G. Federation (supra) relied upon by the defendant/applicant is distinguishable from this case, in the sense that the issues in that

matter had nothing to do with land. He urged this Court to disregard this authority.

Referring to the preamble to the Land Use Act and Sections 1, 49 and 51 (2) thereof, the learned Silk submitted that title to Federal and State lands are vested in the Federal and State governments for the President and State Governor, to hold same in trust for the Federation and the people of the State respectively. It is his final submission on this issue that the dispute in this case which borders on the defendant’s interference with the land under the management and control of the plaintiff, is a dispute between the Federation and the State which warrants the invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, relying on the case of A.G. Federation v A.G. Lagos State (unreported) Appeal No. SC 50/11 decided on 27/1/17. He urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent.

On pages 2 to 4 of the written address of the plaintiff/respondent, the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant/applicant ought to have filed statement of defence before bringing this application. That all the issues being

canvassed by the applicant are clearly issues of law and cannot arise before or without statement of defence, relying on the case of Alhaji Silifat Ajilowura v Taofik Disu & 13 Ors SC 288/2000 (Nigeria – Law Org.); Lasisi Fadare & Ors v A.G. of Oyo State (1982) ANLR. It is his view that the applicant having failed to file statement of defence, the preliminary objection is fundamentally flawed and liable to be struck out and he so urged the Court.
In his written address, the learned Senior counsel for the applicant contended that the issue of jurisdiction is not necessarily controlled by the Rules of Court which are procedural legislation. That issue of jurisdiction is substantive and proceeds to the foundation or exercise of the case itself. It is his submission that this application is not a procedure in lieu of demurrer or like procedure dictated by the rules of Court; rather, it is a substantive application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain any aspect of the Plaintiffs/Respondent’s case as constituted.
He cited and relied on many authorities including Elabanjo v Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (pt 1001) 76 at 115 paras 13 – 11,

Arjay Ltd v Airline Management Support Ltd (2003) 7 NWLR (pt 820) 577 at 601. Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd v Leventis Technical Co. Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (pt 244) 675 at 693 etc.
In a plethora of authorities, this Court has held that jurisdiction is a threshold issue and live-wire that determines the authority of a Court of law or tribunal to entertain a case before it. It is only when a Court is imbued or conferred with the necessary jurisdiction by the Constitution and/or law that it will have the judicial power and authority to entertain or adjudicate upon any cause or matter brought before it. The absence of such requisite jurisdiction would render any proceedings conducted by such a Court an exercise in futility, null, void and of no effect whatsoever, no matter how well conducted. See Musaconi Ltd v Mr. Aspinall (2013) LPELR 2074 5 (SC), NDIC v CBN (2002) LPELR 2000(SC), 2002 7 NWLR (Pt 766) 273, B.A. Shitta Bey v A.G. of Federation & Anor (1998) LPELR 3055 (SC), (1998) 10 NWLR (pt 570) 392, Salisu & Anor v Mobolaji & Ors (2013) LPELR – 22019 (SC).
The importance of jurisdiction is the very reason why it

can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, be it at the trial, on appeal to the Court of Appeal or even in this Court. It must be noted that the Court can suo motu raise issue of jurisdiction. Once it is apparent to any party that the Court may not have jurisdiction, it can be raised even viva voce. It is in the interest of justice to do so. See Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd v Leventis Technical Co. Ltd (supra) Popoola Elabanjo & Anor v Chief (Mrs.) Ganiat Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (pt 1001) 76, Kotoye v Saraki (1994) 7 NWLR (pt 357) 414 at 466.
There is therefore no need to file statement of defence before issue of jurisdiction can be raised as argued by the learned Senior counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent. I hold that this motion filed by the defendant/applicant was rightly done even as it is yet to file its statement of defence. I shall now proceed to resolve the first issue in this application.

The main thrust of the defendant/applicant’s motion before this Court is that the suit of the plaintiff/respondent as presently constituted does not qualify as one of such matters which the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be activated

and/ or invoked. As I stated earlier at the preliminary stage of this ruling, the issue of jurisdiction of a Court to try a suit is a fundamental and threshold one. This is so because if a Court has no jurisdiction to determine a subject matter of the suit or that the parties are not subject to the jurisdiction of that Court, the proceedings thereof are and remain a nullity however well conducted and the judgment brilliantly written and eloquently delivered. It behoves every Court, including the Apex Court to carefully examine the issues in the statement of claim to determine whether the issues sought to be ventilated before it are within its jurisdictional competence. In essence, jurisdiction is a radical and fundamental prerequisite for adjudication. See Alhaji Hashimu Garba Matari & Ors v Ahmadu Dangaladima & Anor (1993) LPELR 25714 (SC), (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt 281) 266, Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR, 34, Francis Nwanezie v Nuhu Idris & Anor (1993) LPELR 2104 (SC), (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt 279) page 1.

I shall now examine the law under which the Supreme Court derives its Original jurisdiction. This is provided for in Section 232

(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 [as amended] which provides:-
232 (1) The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other Court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether) of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
(2) In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Subsection (1) of this section, the Supreme Court shall have such original jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by any Act of the National Assembly
Provided that no original jurisdiction shall be conferred upon the Supreme Court with respect to any criminal matter.
The above constitutional provision on the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria appears clear and unambiguous. Thus, for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction in a civil case under Section 232 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the following must exist. That is to say: [1) there must be a dispute between the Federation and a State or

States or between States; (2) the dispute must involve a question of law or fact or both and (3) the dispute must pertain to the existence or extent of a legal right. See A.G. of the Federation v A.G. of Abia State (2001) LPELR 24862 (SC).
As was pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the defendant/applicant, Section 232 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (supra), while creating in personam jurisdiction over the Federation and the State or States, limits substantially the subject matter jurisdiction to only disputes between the Federation and a State or between States. It is therefore, not just any dispute that this Court can exercise its original jurisdiction. The subject matter of the dispute must involve the interest of the Federation as a unit and a State or States.
The question may be asked: what is the meaning of Federation By Section 318 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), “Federation” is defined as “the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” The word Federation or Federal Republic of Nigeria is further explained in the said Constitution for the avoidance of doubt. Section 2 (1) and (2) of the said Constitution provide:<br< p=””

</br<

“2 (1) Nigeria is an indivisible and indissoluble sovereign State to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory.”
Simply put, the word Federation means Federal Republic of Nigeria which presently consists of 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory called Abuja. It follows that for a dispute to come within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the subject matter of the dispute must be a matter in which the interest of the Federation as a unit consisting of the interest of the thirty six (36) States and the Federal Capital Territory is in issue. In the instant case, the interest of the thirty five other States (excluding Anambra State) and the Federal Capital Territory in the control over and development of the Amansea land in Anambra State must be paramount and clearly seen in the statement of claim. This is so because in determining the jurisdiction of the Court it is the statement of claim which the Court has to look into where the action is commenced by the filing of statement of claim. See Omnia Nig. Ltd v Dyktrade Ltd (2007) LPELR

– 2641 (SC), (2007) 15 NWLR (pt 1058) 576, Akauve Moses Osoh & Ors v Unity Bank PLC (2013) LPELR – 19968 (SC), (2013) 9 NWLR (pt 1358) P. 1, Felix Onuorah v Kaduna Refining & Petrochemical Co. Ltd (2005) LPELR – 2707 (SC), (2005) 6 NWLR (pt 921) P.393.
It must be noted that there is a clear difference between the “Federation” or “Federal Republic of Nigeria” on the one hand and “Government of the Federation” or “Federal Government.” Whereas the Federation refers to the federating units comprising of all the States and the Federal Capital Territory, the Federal Government or Government of the Federation refers to the Executive arm of the Government which contrasts with the Legislative powers and judicial powers domiciled in the National Assembly and the judiciary respectively. See Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended, A.G. Kano State v A.G. Federation (2007) 6 NWLR (pt 1029) 164 at 184 – 185 paras H B.
A cursory perusal of the statement of claim in the suit giving birth to this application will disclose that the subject matter of the dispute is the right of control over land in

Amansea in Anambra State. By paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the statement of claim, it is very clear that this land was granted by the Government of Anambra State to the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development in collaboration with the incorporated Trustees of Association of Allotees of Federal Sites and Services, Amansea to whom parcels of the land had been allocated to erect their own homes.” Has the plaintiff/respondent, in his statement of claim, shown the interest of the Federation so as to entitle her to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the dispute over this parcel of land I do not think so. What is the interest of the other 35 States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory in respect of this Amansea land in Anambra State It has not been shown. Rather, what is clearly demonstrated is that the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development acquired this land and partitioned same to individuals to build their houses. These individuals have formed themselves into an association called “Incorporated Trustees of Association of Allotees of Federal Sites and Services Scheme, Amansea,

Anambra State.”
As was rightly held by this Court in A.G. Kano v A.G. Federation (supra), the venue for the settlement of any dispute arising between the Federal Government or any of its agencies lies elsewhere with various Courts of first instance whose original jurisdiction are clearly outlined in the same 1999 Constitution. Care must be taken so as not to confuse the original jurisdiction donated to the Supreme Court in Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution with the original jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 (1) (p) (q) and (r) dealing with actions against the Federal Government or any of its agencies. Exhibit A referred to in paragraphs 16 (a) of the Statement of Claim as the letter by the Anambra State Government dated 30th October, 1992 informing the Federal Government through the controller, Federal Ministry of Works and Housing Awka that the then Military Administrator of Anambra State had approved the acquisition . of the subject matter in dispute …….” is the same as exhibit A annexed to the affidavit in support of this motion. A careful perusal of the said document which created the right which

the plaintiff seeks to enforce discloses that the Federation, as defined in this judgment, was not a party to the same.
Furthermore, exhibit G, which is the lease agreement shows that “the large expanse of land at Awka/Amansea, Anambra State measuring approximately 114.360 Hectares was acquired by the Ministry for Site and Services Scheme.” (Italics mine for emphasis). Paragraph 4 of Exhibit G states further that:
“4 The Ministry and the Association having considered all that the infrastructural development will involve have agreed to work together as parties for the mutual benefit of Government and all the Allotees of the Scheme in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth.”
Clearly, the parties named in the above paragraph i.e. “the Ministry” “the Association” and “Allotees” are the real beneficiaries of the land in dispute. The venue to ventilate their grievance is certainly not the Supreme Court in its original jurisdiction. Maybe, Section 251 of the Constitution, 1999 could be explored. All the documents alluded to by the Plaintiff/Respondent in the statement of claim bear testimony to the fact that it is not the

Federation but an agency of the Federal Government that transacted with Anambra State Government over the disputed land. In circumstance therefore, Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) does not contemplate such a dispute.
The summary of all I have endeavoured to say above is that by Section 232 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the suit of the Plaintiff/Respondent as is presently constituted does not qualify for the invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The application of the defendant/applicant to strike out the suit is hereby granted. The suit is accordingly struck out.

Having granted the first relief in the motion paper and the suit struck out, it becomes unnecessary to consider the two alternative reliefs as that would amount to an academic exercise. I shall make no order as to costs.

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.: I agree with the Ruling delivered by my learned brother, Inyang John Okoro JSC and to underscore that support I shall make some remarks.

The defendant/applicant by a motion on Notice

filed on 29th February, 2016 which I shall recast hereunder for ease of reference and it is thus:
MOTION ON NOTICE
1. SECTION 232, CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED).
2. SECTION 97 AND 99, SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS ACT.
‘TAKE NOTICE that the Supreme Court of Nigeria shall be moved on the —- day of — 2016 at the hour of 9’Oclock in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as the business of the Supreme Court may permit the defendant/applicant or counsel on his behalf to be heard praying this Honourabie Court as follows:
i. FOR AN ORDER pursuant to Section 232 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), striking out this suit for want of jurisdiction on the ground that the dispute does not involve Nigeria as a federation on the one hand and Anambra State Government on the other, but rather involves a dispute between the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development over allocation of land made by the Governor of Anambra State.
IN THE ALTERNATIVE:
ii. FOR AN ORDER pursuant to Sections 97 and 99 Sheriff and Civil Process Act, setting aside the writ of summons

and all other processes served on the Defendant at the office of the Attorney General of Anambra State, Awka, Anambra State on the ground that:-
a. the writ of summons and the statement of claim were not marked for service outside Abuja being the seat of the Court.
b. the writ of summons did not accord the defendant the mandatory period of not less than 30 days within which to enter appearance.
IN THE FURTHER ALTERNATIVE AND IN THE EVENT OF THE COURT NOT GRANTING (i) AND (ii) ABOVE:
iii. FOR AN ORDER of extension of the time within which the defendant may be allowed to enter appearance and file the requisite to this suit.
And for such orders or further orders as the Supreme Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION
l. Based on the facts disclosed on statement of claim, there is no dispute between the Federation and Anambra State Government.
II. The Court processes served on the Defendant especially the writ of summons and statement of claims served at the defendant’s office in Awka, Anambra State were not endorsed for service outside Abuja.
III. The Defendant was not allowed a

period of not less than 30 days to enter appearance and file the necessary papers in defence
IV. Defendant is questioning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to adjudicate over the matter and thus did not comply with the directive of the writ of summons as regards entering of appearance.

In support of the motion is a seven (7) paragraph affidavit, a further affidavit filed on 17th February, 2017, a written address filed on 17th February, 2017 and a reply on points of Law filed on 3rd March. 2017.

The plaintiff filed a counter affidavit on 9th May, 2016 of five (5) paragraphs, a further affidavit of the same date and a written address of 24th February, 2017

BACKGROUND FACTS
These facts may be easily gleaned from the writ of summons and statement of claim filed on the 9th November, 2015 and briefly they are as follows:
17. (a). A Declaration that the 148.337 hectares of land at Amansea, Awka North Local Government Area, Anambra, comprising Federal Government Sites and Services scheme, Amansea/Awka, was lawfully acquired by the Federal Government of Nigeria in 1992, under the Land Use Act of 1978 (as amended)
(b). A

Declaration that the Federal Government of Nigeria had duly paid the required compensation that was assessed to the knowledge of and active collaboration with the Anambra State Government.
(c). A Declaration that the Federal Government of Nigeria had duly granted statutory Rights of Occupancy to her Allotters and Development partners members of the public and original Land Owners to the knowledge of active collaboration with the Anambra State Government.
(d). A Declaration that the purported Revocation of the Federal Government of Nigeria’s Rights and Interest over the said Federal Government Sites and Services Scheme, Amansea/Awka, measuring 148.337 Hectares of land, by the Anambra State Government vide a Public Notice dated 1st September 2014, is wrongful, unlawful, null, void and of no effect whatsoever as same is neither supported by any extant law in force in Nigeria nor done for any justifiable reasons.
(e) A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Anambra State Government whether by itself, its agents, servant, representatives, or Privies, howsoever, from further interfering with the rights and interest of the Federal Government of Nigeria

and her allotters and development Partners over the said Federal Government Site and Services Scheme, Amansea/Awka.
(f). A Declaration that the purported Revocation of the Federal Government of Nigeria’s Right and Interests over the said Federal Government Sites and Service Scheme, Amansea/Awka, measuring 148.337 Hectares of land by the Anambra State Government vide a public Notice dated 1st September, 2014, is null, void and of no effect whatsoever as the plaintiff was never served the purported Notice of Revocation as required by the Land Use Act, 1978.
(g) A Declaration that the purported Revocation of the Federal Government of Nigerian’s Rights and Interest over the said Federal Government sites and Services Scheme, Awka, measuring 148.337 Hectares of land by the Anambra State Government, vide a Public Notice dated 1st September, 2014, is null, void and of no effect whatsoever, since the defendant merely purportedly assigned same Sites and services Scheme to profit-driven Private Developer, and for any Public Purpose howsoever.
(h). 50 Billion Naira only being exemplary and aggravated damages suffered by the Federal Government of Nigeria by

the unconscionable actions of the defendant resulting in disruptions of the lawful activities of the Federal Government of Nigeria and her allotters and development Partners over the said Federal Government Sites and Services Scheme at Amansea/Awka, Anambra State.
(i) Cost of the suit.

On the 26th day of September 2017 date of hearing, learned counsel Dr. Onyechi lkpeazu SAN, in line with the written address had utilized the three issues he raised therein which is viz:
1. Whether the suit before the Supreme Court which is essentially a dispute between the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and the Governor of Anambra State over the control of land in Amansea town, Anambra State is a dispute between the Federation of Nigeria and Anambra State so as to come within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
In the alternative:
2. Whether Sections 97 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act extended to endorsement and service of writ of summons initiated at the Court.
In the further Alternative:
3. If issues 1 and 2 are resolved against the defendant/applicant, whether the

defendant/applicant is entitled to the indulgence of the Court to file the requisite Court process in defence of the suit.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, Chief Mike Ozekhome SAN raised three issues for determination which are thus:
1. Whether this suit as presently constituted, is proper before this Court in relation to the parties herein having regards to the provisions of Sections 232(1) and 318 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 20 of the Supreme Court Act.
2. Whether Section 97 and 99 of Sheriffs and Civil Process Act are applicable to this suit brought before the Supreme Court of Nigeria
3. Whether having regards to the provisions of Order 2, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, the service of originating process on the defendant was properly effected

I shall utilise the first issue as crafted by the applicant though in the main the same as that of the respondent and it is as follows:-
ISSUE 1
Whether the suit before the Supreme Court which is essentially a dispute between the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and the Governor of Anambra State over the control of land in

Amansea town, Anambra State is a dispute between the Federation of Nigeria and Anambra State so as to come within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

Pushing forward the position of the defendant/applicant, Dr. Ikpeazu of counsel contended that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria is provided for in Section 232(1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution that the provisions envisage that the subject matter of the dispute must involve the interest of the federation as a unit which is not the same as in the case at hand. That the policies of the Federal Government executed through the ministries are not acts or policies of the Federation and so a dispute therefore would not bring about the invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. He cited Sections 4(1), 5(1) and 6(1) of the Constitution as well as Section 147(1) of the same 1999 Constitution.

For the applicant a reference to the statement of claim was made with specific paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 on display to show that the necessary provision for the ventilation of grievances arising from disputes between agencies of the Federal Government are well covered by

the Constitution and outside such matters upon which the invocation of the Supreme Court would as Court of first instance lie. He cited A.G. Kano State v A.G. Federation (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 164 at 184 186.

That all the documents alluded to by the plaintiff/respondent bear testimony to the fact that it is not the Federation but the agency of the Federal Government that transacted with Anambra State.

Responding, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent stated that what is before the Court is in the nature of a preliminary objection which comes into being by the filing of a statement of defence having been earlier filed and not before. That the issues herein raised are those of law and cannot arise without the filing of the statement of defence. He cited Lasisi Fadare & Ors v Attorney General of Oyo State (1982) ALL NLR.

Learned counsel further contended that if the Court holds that the suit is properly constituted then it is urged that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain it in its Original jurisdiction as the dispute borders on the true ownership of the said land and the property or otherwise of the revocation made by the

defendant. He relied on the case of A.G. Anambra State v A.G. Federation (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1947) 92-93.

That in determining whether the plaintiff/respondent has invoked this Court’s original jurisdiction properly that what is called for is a look at the plaintiff’s claim. He cited Omnia Nig Ltd v. Dyktrade Ltd (No.2) (2007) 7 SC 44 at 79-80; Sections 5 and 318 of the 1999 Constitution and 148 thereof.

In a nutshell, while the defendant/applicant has brought this motion by way of a preliminary objection challenging the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which the suit seeks to invoke, the plaintiff/respondent is attacking this jurisdictional question on the ground that such a preliminary objection on points of law can be brought before this Court by first filing a statement of defence and anything short of that would not fly. That stance of the plaintiff/respondent would take a pride of place where in the first place there is jurisdiction in the Court to take off which is the point at which we are in this application.
It is correct to say that the issue of jurisdiction is not necessarily controlled by the Rules of Court which are procedural legislation, while the issue of jurisdiction is

substantive and goes to the root or foundation or existence of the case itself. Therefore this application before us crying for consideration is a substantive application challenging the vires of the Court to entertain the case which the plaintiff has brought before it and so the statement of defence is not a condition precedent to the entertainment of this preliminary objection on the challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court. The situation is well captured by this Court in the case of:
Elabanjo v Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1001) 76 at 115 per Mahmud Mohammed JSC (as he then was) thus:-
“The application was plainly brought under the provisions of the Limitation Law Cap.118 of the Laws of Lagos State, 1994 to challenge the jurisdiction of the trial Court that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s action for their failure to bring the action within the period of 12 years prescribed by the law. As the respondent being defendant had perceived that the action as constituted before the trial Court against her was not worth defending, was perfectly justified in refusing to avail herself of the provisions of Order 23 of the High Court

Rules, by filing her statement of defence before raising her objection against the jurisdiction of the trial Court. This is because the law is trite that an objection that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a matter or action is certainly not an ordinary point of law contemplated, under Order 23 Rules 2 and 3 of the Lagos State High Court Civil Procedures Rules. Issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental. It can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the High Court, the Court of Appeal and in this Court by the parties or suo motu by Court itself. See OLORIODE v OYEBI (1984) 1 SCNLR 390; (1984) 5 SC 1; OLOBA V AKEREJA (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 84) 508 AND KOTOYE V SARAKI (1994) 7 NWLR (PT. 357) 414 AT 453-454. Therefore it was perfectly in order for the trial Court which heard the preliminary objection to have ruled on it one way or the other, rather than striking it out on the ground that no statement of defence was filed before it was brought. The trial Court was wrong in taking this stand as found by the Court below whose judgment was not given in total disregard of the provisions of Order 23 of the Lagos High Court Rules as assumed by the Appellants because being an issue of jurisdiction, these rules cannot dictate when and how it can be raised.
It is now beyond argument that because issue of jurisdiction is regarded as a threshold issue and a

lifeline for continuing any proceedings, objection to it ought to be taken at the earliest opportunity as was done in the present case if there are sufficient materials before the Court to consider it and a decision reached on it before any other step because if there is no jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are a nullity no matter how well conducted. See NDAEYO v OGUNAYA (1977) 1 SC 11, CHACHAROS v EKIMPEX LTD (1988) 1 NWLR (pt. 68) 88.”
In ARJAY LTD v AIRLINE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT LTD (2003) 7 NWLR (pt.820) 577 at 601. The Supreme Court was confronted with the point of raising a preliminary objection on issue of jurisdiction before a Federal High Court before filing pleadings. The Court per Onu JSC held thus:
I agree with the Appellant to the effect that the preliminary objection in question challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the action. This is not a demurrer application in which case there should be a statement of claim in place, the facts of which the appellant would be required to admit before bringing their objection. I agree with the appellant’s submission that there is a difference between an objection to

the jurisdiction and a demurrer. I also agree with them that an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court can be raised at any time, even when there are no pleadings filed and that a party raising such an objection need not bring application under any rule of Court and that it can be brought under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Thus, for this reason, once the objection to jurisdiction of the Court is raised, the Court has inherent power to consider the application even if the only process of the Court has been filed is the writ of summons and affidavits in support of an interlocutory application, as in the case at hand.
Also in PETROJESSICA ENTERPRISES LTD v LEVENTIS TECHNICAL CO. LTD (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 675 at 693, the Supreme Court per Belgore JSC (as he then was) held thus:-
“Jurisdiction is the very basis on which any tribunal tries a case; it is the lifeline. This importance of jurisdiction is the reason why it can be raised at any stage of case, be it at the trial, on appeal to Court of Appeal or to this Court, afortiori the Court can suo motu raise it. It is desirable that preliminary objection be raised early on issue of jurisdiction: but once it is apparent to any party

that the Court may not have jurisdiction it can be raised even viva voce as in this case. It is always in the interest of justice to raise issue of jurisdiction so as to save time and costs and to avoid a trial in nullity.
Following in the heels of those authorities above cited, it is clear that though it is desirable that preliminary objections on issues of jurisdiction should be raised early, once it is apparent to any party that the Court may not have jurisdiction, it can be even viva voce, the importance of the matter of jurisdiction comes to the fore since the dictates of the interest of justice impels that it be raised so as to save time and cost and to avoid a trial which had been prosecuted amounting to a nullity.
For emphasis, the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and being a point of law, can be raised at any stage and is not controlled by a rule of Court when such a point of law would be raised. It is for this reason that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in any Court including the Supreme Court and the Court can raise it suo motu. See NASIR v C.S.C KANO (2007) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1190) 253 at 276 per OGBUAGU JSC; KOTOYE v SARAKI (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.

357) 414 at 466, KATTO v CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) 216; WEMA SEC & FIN PLC v N.A.I.C. (2015) 16 NWLR (pt.1484) 93 at 124.
The conclusion of the point of the regularity or propriety of raising the preliminary objection of the defendant/applicant at this stage without the defendant first filing its statement of defence has manifestly been answered by the well settled position of this Court on the matter of jurisdiction in its paramount position of the issue since it is a threshold point. The application is in order properly before the Court and the Court has no reason shying away from determining it: See OSADEBAY v A.G. BENDEL STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 169) 525; OWONIBOYS TECH SERVICES LTD v JOHN HOLT LTD (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 170) 660; UTIH v ONOYIVWE (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166.

Now on the main question for consideration, if the suit calling for its determination in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as initiated by the plaintiff is proper before this Court. I shall refer to Sections 232(1) and 318 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 20 of the Supreme Court Act relevant to the matter in hand. Section 232(1) & (2) of

the 1999 Constitution (as amended), states thus:
The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other Court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of legal right depends.
In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon it, by Subsection (1) of this section, the Supreme Court shall have such original jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by any Act of the National Assembly.”
Section 318 of CFRN provides thus:-
Federation means the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Section 2(1) and 2 of CFRN stipulates as follows:
2(1) Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign State to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory.”
The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, Chief Mike Ozekhome took the point that a dispute arose on the 1st day of September, 2014 when the Defendant purportedly revoked the land belonging to the Federal Government

situated at Amansea, Awka North Local Government Area which land had earlier been acquired by the Government of the Federation for the purpose of Federal Site and Services Scheme. That the dispute borders on true ownership of the said land and the propriety or otherwise of the revocation issued by the defendant.
This Court had occasion to define a ‘dispute’ in the case of A.G. ANAMBRA STATE v A.G. FEDERATION (2007) 12 NWLR (pt.1047) as follows:
“The word “dispute” has been judicially defined in a number of cases by this Court including, but not limited to, A.G. of Bendel State v A.G. of the Federation; A.G. of the Federation v A.G. of Imo State both supra, as the act of arguing against, controversy, debate, contention as to rights, claims and the like or on a matter of opinion. It is also the view of this Court, that a controversy in the constructional sense must be one that is appropriate for judicial determination in constructing or interpreting the word dispute for the purposes of invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court, it has been held that the word should be given such meaning that will effectuate rather than defeat the

purposes, of that Section of Constitution. From the plain and simple meaning of the word in question, it is very clear that the dispute that must invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court must not be a personal dispute particularly as the purpose of the Constitution is not to make personal dispute a subject of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
It is also the requirement of the Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution that the dispute must relate to the existence or extent of a legal right, which to my mind, must not be personal. per ONNOGHEN,JSC [as he then was] (Pp. 92-93, paras A-C).
In determining whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter the relevant document is the statement of claim and not the writ of summons and this the Supreme Court gave its stamp of authority in the case of OMNIA NIG. LTD. v DYKTRADE LTD (NO. 2) (2007) 7SC 44 at 79-80.
Therefore a reference to the relevant paragraphs of the statement of claim would be helpful here, these are paragraphs 8, 9 and 10.
“8. Surprisingly, and to the Plaintiff utmost shock and bewilderment of the plaintiff, the Defendant by a

Notice dated 1st September, 2014, purportedly acting under Section 28(5) of the Land Use Act, 1978, Revoked the Right of Occupancy of the Plaintiff over the land at Amansea. Anambra state, already designated Federal Sites and Services Scheme and containing an area of approximately 148.337 hectares, for alleged overriding public interest, consequent upon what it termed a breach of Section 10 of the Land Use Act for failure to develop and utilize the land more than 10 years after allocation; and for obtaining control over the land and in connection with planned urban development.
9. On becoming aware of the purported Revocation by the Defendant, plaintiff to promptly rejected same and protested to the defendant in writing. The Plaintiff contended that there was no legal basis for the defendant to have embarked on such a specious gamble, since neither the section of other law under which the purported revocation was made supportive of the action of the defendant besides, the Plaintiff was already developing the site in conjunction with its development partners. The position of the Plaintiff was conveyed in very clear terms to the defendant by letters

dated 16th October, 2014, and 3rd August, 2015. The Plaintiff shall be found upon them.
The Defendant apparently accepted the plaintiffs protest against the purported revocation as the plaintiff and her agents, Allottees and Development partners continued their activities on the Sites and Services Scheme, unmolested and unhindered, until 30th June, 2015, when the dastardly disruptive acts of the Defendants again surfaced.
10. The Plaintiff avers that this was the second time the Anambra State Government and Federal Government of Nigeria (Plaintiff and Defendant herein) are tussling over the issue of revocation, or better still, purported revocation of the subject site.
From the statement of claim and its relevant paragraphs, references to the plaintiff are pertaining to the Federal Government or the Executive arm of Government of the Federation which references are distinct from the Federation which carries with it all its three arms of Government.
Also important to note is that the subject matter of the dispute is the right of control of Amansea land in Anambra State which the plaintiff claimed it acquired through the

instrumentality of the Anambra State Government clearly within the ambit of the Land Use Act.
I shall quote the relevant Section thereby being Section 39(1) and (2) thus:
39(1) The High Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction in respect of the following proceedings-
(a) Proceedings in respect of any land the subject matter of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor or deemed to be granted by him under this Act, and for the purpose of this paragraph, proceedings include proceedings for a declaration of title to a statutory right of occupancy;
(2) All laws including rules of Court, regulating the practice and procedure, the High Court shall apply in respect of proceedings to which this Section relates and the laws shall have effect with such modifications and would enable effect to be given to the provisions of this Section”.
I am at one with the position canvassed by learned Senior Advocate, Dr.lkpeazu that no matter how the case has been presented or shrouded, the pith of the case is the existence of a dispute over the proposed Site and Services Scheme of the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban

Development which is an agency of the Federal Government. The acts of agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria are not covered by Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 251 of the CFRN has made ample provisions for the ventilation of such grievances. For clarity I shall refer to the case of: A.G. KANO STATE v A.G FEDERATION (2007) 6 NWLR (pt.1029) 164, the Supreme Court of Nigeria stated the clear position of the law at pages 184 to 185 (Para H to B) thus:
“I have already stated earlier in this judgment that Section 212 of the 1979 Constitution under which the word ‘Federation’ was defined is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution now under consideration. I therefore respectfully, adopt the definition of the word ‘Federation’ in Section 232 of 1999 Constitution as bearing the same meaning as the ‘Federal Republic of Nigeria’. By this meaning of course all the complaints of the plaintiff in its statement of claim in the present case must be viewed as being against the Federal Republic of Nigeria in order to bring the case within the purview of Section 232 of the Constitution. In other words, any

complaints against the Government of the Federation or any person who exercises power or authority on its behalf like the Inspector General of Police or authority on its behalf like the Inspector General of police as asserted by the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff in his address before this Court, are completely outside the original jurisdiction of this Court”.
Further at page 188 (Para-G) the Court categorically held thus:
“The venue for the settlement of such dispute lies elsewhere with various Courts of first instance whose original jurisdiction are clearly outlined in the same 1999 Constitution. It may be appropriate to observe at this stage that the original jurisdiction of this Court under Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution must be distinguished with the original jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251(1) (p),(q) and (r) dealing with actions against the Federal Government or any of its agencies where the same Constitution states:
“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-
(p) The administration or 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 of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.. having regard to these plain provisions of the Constitution, I am of the strong view that, to accede to argument of the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff to entertain the present action would result in reducing the status and function of this Court to that of the Federal High Court, quite contrary to the spirit and intention of the Constitution which assigned the limit of powers and jurisdiction to be exercised by each Court created by it”. See also A. G. ABIA STATE v A.G. FEDERATION (2007) NWLR (Pt.1029) 200.
Indeed there is no need belabouring a

narrow point as from all that is before the Court, what is really the grouse of the plaintiff for which it has come to Court does not concern the Federation but rather a matter of concern for the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development as an agency of the Federal Government.
Therefore it is outside the purview of the disputes as contemplated by Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria upon which the original jurisdiction of the Court can be initiated. That being the case there is no jurisdiction in this Court to do more than to say it lacks jurisdiction in its original form to adjudicate on the matter as presented by the plaintiff. Therefore the only option open to this Court is to strike out the suit based on a lack of jurisdiction.

The lead Ruling has fully articulated all that needs to be said and I go along with it including the consequential orders made. Suit is struck out.

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA, J.S.C.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead ruling of my learned brother Inyang Okoro, JSC just delivered. I agree entirely with the reasoning and conclusion that the suit

lacks merit and should be struck out. The suit is hereby struck out by me.

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.: I had a preview of the lead Ruling delivered by my learned brother, Okoro, JSC, and I agree with him that the subject matter of the dispute, control over land in Anambra State is certainly not a dispute between the Federation and a State as envisaged under the 1999 Constitution.
Section 232 (1) of the Constitution says that this Court only has “original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question – – on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.”
The Constitution used the word “Federation’ in its Section 232, and a ” Federation” is a group of States with a central government but independence in internal affairs – see Oxford Dictionaries where the word, “federation” is also defined as “the action of forming States or organizations into a single group with centralized control.” In effect, the said Section 232 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) does not envisage a situation where the original jurisdiction of this Court is

invoked to adjudicate over a dispute between the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and the Governor of one of the States in the Federation over the control of land in that State.
This Court made this point very clear in A-G., Federation V. A-G., Imo State & Ors (1982) NSCC (Vol. 13) 567, wherein the Attorney General of the Federation sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court over claims in three Suits in the High Courts of Imo, Ondo and Lagos States. But the Defendants objected on the ground that the said matter was not a dispute between the Federation and any State.
In striking out the Suit, this Court held that the dispute in the case of Imo State was between the Attorney-General of that State on behalf of the citizens of Imo State (and not as the representative of Imo State) and the Electoral commission while the dispute in Ondo and Lagos States were between private persons and the Commission and that the dispute in the three States centered on the constitutional rights of qualified citizens to be registered in the Register of voters.
Thus, this Court held in A-G., Fed. V. A-G., Imo State (supra), that no

legal right of the Federation or any of the said States was involved. Bello, JSC (as he then was), illuminated this point further as follows
It seems to me if the submission of Chief Williams were to be accepted, then this Court, to the exclusion of any other Court would exercise its original jurisdiction in any dispute between a functionary of the Federal Government and an official of a State Government or between officials of conflicting States or between employees of local government councils. Disputes between the permutation and combination of such functionaries, officials and employees would certainly be multifarious. Thus, a dispute between a traffic warden in the Nigeria Police and a warden employed by a State Government involving the question as to which warden has the right to control traffic at a particular junction would fall within the original jurisdiction of the Court. The same would apply to dispute between health labourers employed by different local government councils as to whose duty it is to remove night-soil from a particular house. If that would be the case, then this Court would be inundated with uncontrollable flood of suits in

original jurisdiction and in that event, the Court would hardly be in a position to discharge effectively its primary appellate function as prescribed under Section 213 of the Constitution– For the purposes of Section 212(1), it is imperative to put on the word “State” such interpretation as well best carry out the object and purpose for which the Supreme Court was established by the Constitution.
Obviously, I need say no more. The bottom line is that the Plaintiff cannot invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court over this matter.

Thus, I also strike out the suit. I also make no order as to costs.

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, OKORO, JSC and I entirely agree with the reasoning contained therein and the conclusion arrived thereat.

The Respondent herein claimed against the applicant herein declaratory reliefs and perpetual injunction in respect of a parcel of 148.337 hectares of land at Amansea, Awka North Local Government Area of Anambra State which he claimed was lawfully acquired by the Federal Government in 1992, but

the rights therein were revoked by Anambra State Government. The action was initiated in the Supreme Court on the ground that it is a dispute between Anambra State and the Federation in line with Section 232 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which provides as follows:
“The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other Court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.”

When the action came up for hearing, the defendant to the suit who is the applicant herein challenged the competence of the suit and asked the Court to strike same out. The grounds upon which the challenge was initiated as set out in the applicant’s motion are reproduced hereunder as follows:
GROUNDS FOR THE APPLICATION:
i. Based on the facts disclosed on statement of claim, there is no dispute between the Federation and Anambra State Government.
ii. The Court processes served on the Defendant especially the writ of summons and statement of claims

served at the defendant’s office in Awka, Anambra State were not endorsed for service outside Abuja.
iii. The Defendant was not allowed a period of not less than 30 days to enter appearance and file the necessary papers in defence.
iv. Defendant is questioning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to adjudicate over the matter and this did not comply with the directive of the wit of summons as regards entering of appearance.

The first ground upon which this application is brought is enough to dispose off this application. Section 318 of the Constitution defines Federation as follows:
“Federation means the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
Section 2 (1) and (2) of the same Constitution provides as follows:
2 (1) Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(2) Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory.”
From the definition of the Federation as reproduced above, Federation is clearly different from the Government of the Federation where ministries, departments of the three arms of Government are agencies

of Government. Federation as mentioned in Section 232 of the Constitution consists of all the States of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory. A dispute as is contemplated by the Constitution is which areas of legislation are available to the States and Federation. Acquisition of land in Anambra State has nothing to do with other States of the Federation. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has made adequate provision under Section 251 to take care of actions of the various agencies of the Federal Government. The action before this Court has nothing to do with dispute between the Federation and the State of Anambra. The proper Court to go to is the Anambra State High Court as provided for under Section 39 (1)(a) and (2) of the Land Use Act.

For these few words and the more detailed reasoning in the lead ruling, the application to strike out this suit is granted as prayed.

I abide by all the consequential orders made in the lead ruling including order as to costs.

Appearances:

Dr. Onyechi lkpeazu, SAN with him, Uju lkpeazu, Tobechukwu Nweke, Esq., Obinna Onya, Esq., A. A. Akaahs, Esq. and Nwakama Ofoegbu, Esq.For Appellant(s)

Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN with him, P. N. Agazie, Esq., Nkem Okoro, Esq., Akintayo Balogun, Esq. and Vivian Oluchi Uche [Miss)For Respondent(s)

Appearances

Dr. Onyechi lkpeazu, SAN with him, Uju lkpeazu, Tobechukwu Nweke, Esq., Obinna Onya, Esq., A. A. Akaahs, Esq. and Nwakama Ofoegbu, Esq.For Appellant

AND

Chief Mike Ozekhome, SAN with him, P. N. Agazie, Esq., Nkem Okoro, Esq., Akintayo Balogun, Esq. and Vivian Oluchi Uche [Miss)For Respondent

LawCare Nigeria

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE(2017)

admin

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

UNDERSTANDING CONTRACT LAW FOR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS IN NIGERIA

Protecting Minority Shareholders in a Nigerian Company

Agency and Distribution Agreements in Nigeria: What You Need to Know

Franchising Your Business in Nigeria: Key Legal Considerations

admin

Related Story

YOU MAY HAVE MISSED