ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS V. MRS. INIMFON ANIEKAN NELSON & ORS
March 19, 2025NWOKORO & ORS v. ASHUE
March 19, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2023-02) Legalpedia 65089 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Feb 3, 2023
Suit Number: SC.277/2007
CORAM
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM
PARTIES
NZUBE ANAZODO
APPELLANTS
PAZMECK INTERTRADE NIGERIA LIMITED
2. PETER EKECHUKWURESPONDENT(S)
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CONTRACT, TORT
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant being a Customs Licensed Clearing Agent in the Lagos Ports was engaged in 1999 to clear forty feet container of goods at the Lagos Ports for the Respondents, who were importers. The Respondents were charged N700,000 and paid same and agreed that the goods would be delivered within 2 weeks. There was a two weeks delay and upon enquiries, they were informed that the Appellant forged some of the documents and receipts used in clearing the said container, which caused the container to be seized. The Respondents’ container was later released to them having paid all the necessary fees again while some goods were missed. The Respondents later instituted this suit in the Nnewi High Court claiming N5 million damages as special and general damages.
Both the trial and lower Courts gave judgment in favour of the Respondents, hence this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the lower Court had the requisite jurisdiction to determine the suit and to dismiss the case of the Appellant as lacking in merit.
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the fundamental rights to fair hearing of the Appellant guaranteed by Section 36 (1) 1999 Constitution were not infringed by the learned trial Judge’s heavy reliance on a report of a Panel of Inquiry which indicted the Appellant of a criminal offence
Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the award of special damages of N527,000, N132,096, N172,050 and awarding N340,000 which the High Court expressed dissatisfaction
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION – HOW IT IS DETERMINED
The issue of jurisdiction is usually gleaned and deciphered from the Statement of claim or the processes filed. When issue of jurisdiction is raised, the Court must carefully peruse the claim of the plaintiff in order to determine the crucial issue of jurisdiction. It has long been a settled law, that when a Court is faced with question as to whether it has jurisdiction in a matter or not, it is incumbent upon it to refer to the subject matter of the claim as pleaded by the plaintiff. See Per AMIRU SANUSI, JSC, in NPA V. AMINU IBRAHIM & CO. & ANOR (2018) LPELR-44464 (SC) (PP. 23-24, PARAS. C-A). – Per U. M. Abba Aji, JSC
JURISDICTION – CONTRACT – FEDERAL HIGH COURT OR STATE HIGH COURTS AND HIGH COURT OF THE FCT.
This Court considered the jurisdiction of the State High Court on contract even when the Federal Government or its agency is involved, wherein Per MUHAMMAD, JSC, in SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT V. MINISTRY OF FCT & ORS (2018) LPELR-45708(SC) (PP. 24-31 PARAS. B) held:
My lords, from the averments… the agreement entered by the appellant and respondents is on a simple contract which was alleged to have been breached by the respondents. By the nature of the claim therefore, a State High Court and an FCT High Court are vested with general jurisdiction to entertain disputes on simple contract which is not covered by the provision of Section 251 of the Constitution…
…as already stated above, the determining factor the Court, which in this case, is one founded on breach of contract… It is the section that confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, which jurisdiction clearly does not include dealing with any case of simple contract or damages for negligence as envisaged by the action before the trial Court… There is no scintilla of doubt therefore, that since the claim of the plaintiff/ appellant is based on simple contract, breach of which would involve damages, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and not the Federal High Court is the appropriate Court for the settlement of such disputes.
In the same vein, the parties in the instant appeal do not involve any of the Federal Government or its agency at all to even confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. This Court in JAMMAL STEEL STRUCTURES LTD V. AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (1973) ALL NLR AT 852 held that for the Federal High Court to have exclusive jurisdiction, the cause or matter must relate to the revenue of the Federation or its organs or agencies, and that the Federal Government or its agency must be a party.
It must be warned that a party cannot use the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to scuttle the case of another party when the subject matter, reliefs and parties do not come under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as constitutionally provided. Although the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is wide, it is by no means unlimited and while that Court, as any other Court, can expound its jurisdiction, it cannot expand it to include any matters over which the law creating it did not vest it with powers to determine. See Per NGWUTA, JSC, in PORTS AND CARGO HANDLINGS SERVICES CO LTD & ORS V. MIGFO (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2012) LPELR-9725(SC) (PP. 67 PARAS. A). – Per U. M. Abba Aji, JSC
PANEL REPORTS – WHETHER THEY CAN BE CHALLENGED
Per AKA’AHS, JSC, in DANLADI V. DANGIRI & ORS (2014) LPELR-24020(SC) (PP. 67-68 PARAS. E), made it clear that such a report can be challenged when presented against a party. When he asked, “Is the conduct of the seven-man panel immuned from being challenged by the appellant?” The answer is that it can be challenged.
– Per U. M. Abba Aji, JSC
SPECIAL DAMAGES – ESTABLISH ENTITLEMENT
It is now well-established that special damages claimed by a plaintiff must be strictly proved. In effect, the rule requires anyone asking for special damages to prove strictly that he did suffer such special damages as he claimed. What is required is that the person claiming should establish his entitlement to that type of damages by credible evidence of such character as would suggest that he indeed is entitled to an award under that head. Otherwise, the general law of evidence as to proof by preponderance or weight usual in civil cases operates.
See Per OGUNTADE, JSC, in SPDC LTD V. TIEBO & ORS (2005) LPELR-3203(SC) (PP. 15-17 PARAS. E).
– Per U. M. Abba Aji, JSC
SPECIAL DAMAGES – CONDUCT OF THE COURT
The law is firmly established that special damages must be pleaded with distinct particularity and strictly proved. As such, a Court is not entitled to make an award of special damages based on conjecture or on some fluid and speculative estimate of alleged loss sustained by a Plaintiff. Therefore, as far as the requirements of the law are concerned on the award of special damages, a trial Court cannot make its own individual or arbitrary assessment of what it conceives the plaintiff may be entitled to. What the law requires in such a case is for the Court to act strictly on the hard facts presented before the Court and accepted by it as establishing the amount claimed justifying the award.
Where special damages have been proved, the Claimant ought to have it, and where it is not proved, it should either be dismissed or quantifiable by the rule of quantum merit.
See Per MOHAMMED, JSC, in UBN PLC V. AJABULE & ANOR (2011) LPELR-8239(SC) (PP. 21 PARAS. C).
– U. M. Abba Aji, JSC
JURISDICTION – SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT
The fact that an agency of the Federal Government is a party to an action is not a magic wand to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court without more. Section 251(1) of the Constitution spells out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (r) the specific areas in which exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred.
There is a plethora of decisions of this Court to the effect that notwithstanding the fact that an agency of the Federal Government is a party, the Court must also consider the subject matter of the suit to determine which Court, as between the Federal High Court on the one hand and a State High Court or High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on the other, has jurisdiction to entertain the action.
See: A.G. Lagos State Vs Eko Hotels & Anor. (2017) 12 SC (Pt.1)107; (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt.1629)518; Ucha vs Onwe (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt.1237) 386: Petroleum (Special) Trust Fund vs Fidelity Bank Plc & Ors. (2021) LPELR – 56625 (SC) @ 65-68 B – F; Ohakim vs Agbaso (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt.1226) 172.
– Per K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, JSC
JURISDICTION – SIMPLE CONTRACT – NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT
It has also been firmly settled by this Court that matters of simple contract do not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
See: I.T.P.P Ltd vs U.B.N. Plc (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt.995) 483; Chevron (Nig) Ltd Vs Lonestar Drilling (Nig) Ltd (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt.1059) 168 @ 185 D – F @ 187 G – H; Petroleum (Special) Trust Fund Vs Fidelity Bank & Ors (supra); Socio-Political Research Devt. vs Ministry of F.C.T. & Ors. (2018) LPELR – 45708 (SC) @ 24-31 C- E.
– Per K. M. O. KEKERE-EKUN, JSC
APPEAL – AWARD OF COST
I join in dismissing the appeal and since the Respondents are entitled to costs for the successful prosecution of the appeal, in the absence of reasons why they should be deprived of costs;
See: Obayagbona v. Obazee (1972) 5 SC, Haco. Ltd. v. Brown (1973) 4 SC (reprint) 103, Aira Nig. Ltd. v. Mal. Nig. Ltd. (2001) 17 NWLR (pt. 742) 464, Idam v. Mene (2009) 17 NWLR (pt. 1196) 74, Int. Offshore Const. Ltd. v. Shoreline Lift-Boats Nig. Ltd. (2003) 16 NWLR (pt. 845) 157 at 179.
– Per M. L. Garba, JSC
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
