CORAM

MUHAMMADU LAWAL UWAIS, CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA

AUGUSTINE NNAMANI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

IGNATUS CHUKWUDI PATS-ACHOLONU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF CROSS RIVERS STATE PLAINTIFF(S)

DEFENDANTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff  instituted this action  pursuant to the original jurisdiction of the supreme Court against the Federal Government and Akwa Ibom State. Its claims against the former were for an Order directing the former to render accounts on oil revenues due to it from the federation Account and payment of arrears due to it based on new derivation revenue sharing formula and in view of boundary adjustment indices. The claim against Akwa Ibom is a determination of the extent of the boundary between them.

HELD

The Court held that the status quo before the creation of the 2nd defendant state must be maintained and since the communities in dispute has since about 20 years ago become part of Odukpani LGA in the plaintiff’s state, they could not now fall under the 2nd defendant’s state . On the issue of the seaward boundary, the court held that until the Nigeria/Cameroon joint boundary commission concludes its assignment, the ICJ judgment remains binding which has eliminated the plaintiff’s state sea boundary.

ISSUES

(1) Whether by reason of the “frantic effort” of the National Boundary Commission to resolve the boundary dispute between CRS and AKS and to demarcate and survey internal boundaries of Nigeria, the claim of the Plaintiff is premature, speculative or otherwise incompetent?(2) Whether the boundaries of CRS (and more particularly the boundary between CRS and AKS) are as set out in Exhibit CRSDSG 2, and if so whether it is competent of any state government, other than the government of Cross River State, to exercise executive, administrative or judicial power in or over the areas comprising CRS and more particularly in or over the cities, towns and villages set out in paragraph 42.3(a)(i)(ii) and (iii) of the Plaintiffs 3rd Amended State of Claim.(3) Whether CRS is entitled to the orders of account sought in this suit, and/or to judgment for the admitted sum of N3,232,433,537.4?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

CASES CITED

1. Ogundairo & Ors v Okanlawon (1963) 1 All N.L.R. 3582. Ekpenyong & ors v Nyong & ors (1975) 2 SC 78, 80-81, 3. Felix Okoli Ezeonwu v Charles Onyechi and 2 ors (1996) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 438) 439.4. Attorney-General Bendel State v. Attorney-General of the Federation and ors (1983) N.S.C.C. vol.14, 181 at p. 1935. Attorney-General of the Federation v Attorney-General Abia State and others (2002) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt.764) 542 (2001) 6 SCM

STATUTES REFERRED TO

The 1999 Constitution

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT