CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

CAMPAGNIE GENERALE DE GEOPHYSIQUE (NIG) LTD APPELLANTS

---

PRINCE CHARLES ANIDI RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent as Plaintiff filed this action at the Delta State High Court, against the Appellant (Defendant) for damaging the Plaintiff’s cassava while prospecting for crude oil on the Plaintiff’s cassava farm. The Appellant as Defendant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court being a State High Court, to hear the matter. The trial Court upheld the objection and transferred the suit to the Federal High Court instead of striking out the matter. The Appellant has appealed against the trial Court’s judgment contending that if the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit, it also lacked jurisdiction to transfer same.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the State High Court has the jurisdiction to transfer a suit to the Federal High Court where it lacks the necessary jurisdiction to hear same

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

COURT – WHETHER A STATE HIGH COURT HAS THE POWER TO TRANSFER A MATTER TO A FEDERAL HIGH COURT WHERE IT LACKS THE JURISDICTION TO TRY SAME

---

“The position has now been settled on the authority of Karimu Ige Vs. Abraham Obiwale (supra) that the State High Court has no jurisdiction to transfer a matter before it to a court of competent jurisdiction where itself has no jurisdiction to try. Section 22 (3) of the Federal High Court Act to the extent that it gives the State High Court the power to transfer to the Federal High Court cases outside its jurisdiction but found to be within the jurisdiction such Federal High Court is null and void. In conclusion, it is my considered view that by the combined effect of Sections 7 (6) (b) and 7 (9) (b) of the Federal High Court (Amendment) Act of 1991 and Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution and the case of Karimu Ige Vs. Abraham Obiwale (supra) the State High Court lacks the jurisdiction to transfer a case to the Federal High Court where it lacks the jurisdiction to try same” –

---

STATUTES – LEGAL STATUS OF SECTION 22(3) OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT ACT VIS-À-VIS SECTION 251 (1) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION

---

“The power of transfer is absolutely taken away by the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the
Federal High Court of all matters enumerated under Section 251 (l) of the 1999 Constitution. That is to say, any enactment before the coming into force of the 1999 Constitution and which contradicts any of the provisions of the said constitution after it came into force is either modified or repealed to conform with the constitution. It is therefore my considered view that the provisions of Section 22 (3) of the Federal High Court Act stood impliedly repealed or modified by the 1999 Constitution. I am fortified in my view with the decision of the Supreme Court in Olu Of Warri Vs. Kperegbeyi (supra) where it held as follows:-
“Where a new enactment is couched in a general affirmative language and the previous Iaw, whether a law of custom or not, can well stand with it for the language used is all in the affirmative, there is nothing to say that the old law shall be repealed. But when the new affirmative words are such as, by their necessity, to import a contradiction and it is clear that the two should be in conflict, the two should not stand together, the second repeals the first”
From the foregoing, the provision of Section 22 (3) of the Federal High Court Act is clearly inconsistent with the provision of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and therefore the provision of Section 22 (3) of the Act are deemed to have been modified either by implied repeal or by modification so as to bring the law into conformity with the Constitution. The Constitution of Nigeria is the basic law of the land. It is the supreme law and any enactment that runs contrary to its provisions that enactment shall to the extent of its inconsistency be null and void.” –

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT – PROPER ORDER A STATE HIGH COURT SHOULD MAKE WHEN IT LACKS JURISDICTION TO TRY A MATTER

---

“The question of jurisdiction strikes at the root of any cause or matter and consequently raises the issue of the competence of the court to adjudicate in the particular proceedings. Any defeat in competence is fatal and such proceedings must be null and void. Madukolo Vs. Nkemdilim (1962) SCNLR 314 and Skenconsult (Nig) Ltd Vs. Ukay (1981) 1 SC 6. Likewise where a court has no jurisdiction to try a suit before it, it lacks the competence to transfer that suit to a court of competence jurisdiction to try the matter. What the court should do in such circumstance is to strike out the matter before it for want of jurisdiction” –

---

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS – APPLICABLE RULES IN INTERPRETING STATUTORY PROVISIONS

---

“In interpreting statutory provisions, the general scope and preview of the statute must be looked at with a view to determining the meaning sought to be applied and then consider what was the former state of the law and what it was that the legislature contemplated. See Military Governor Ondo State Vs. Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 82) 280. The general rule of interpretation is that a subsequent general Act does not affect the provision of a prior special or private Act, unless it is expressly provided. In other words a subsequent general Act will not interfere and modify or repeal the provisions of a special or private Act, unless the intention is clearly manifested in the general Act. But this general rule is not without exception. Where a special or private Act is absolutely inconsistent and repugnant with a subsequent general Act, the courts are bound to declare the prior special or private Act or any of their provisions repealed by the subsequent general Act. See Military Governor, Ondo State Vs. Adewunmi (supra).” –

---

JURISDICTION – DISTINCTION BETWEEN ABATEMENT OF ACTION AND OUSTER OF JURISDICTION

---

“I therefore agree with the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant that after the commencement of the Act No. 60 of 1991, all subsequent matters ought not to even go to the State High Court because up to the stage before commencement, the jurisdiction only abated, but thereafter, it becomes a case of lack of jurisdiction ab initio. The concurrent jurisdiction of the State High Court and the Federal High Court shared transfer cases under Section 22 (3) of the Federal High Court Act have been taken away by the ouster of concurrent jurisdiction to try. Therefore the order of transfer being a decision in Section 7 (9) (b) of the Act, it is void by virtue of Section 7 6) (b) thereof. In Garba Vs. Federal Civil Service Commission (supra) the Supreme Court at page 233 held as follows:-
“Abatement of an action is, in my view a different thing from ouster of jurisdiction. It concedes that before the abatement provision of legislation comes into operation, the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings.”
–

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT– EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

---

“By virtue of Section 7 (1) of the Federal High Court (Amendment) Decree No. 60 of 1991, the Federal High Court shall to the exclusion of any other court have original jurisdiction to try civil causes and matters connected with or pertaining to among others, mines and minerals including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gases. This provision was reinforced by the amendment of Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution by the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993 which stipulates in its section 230 (1) that the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil matters enumerated therein. In effect, Section 7 (6) of the Federal High Court (Amendment) Act Decree No. 60 of 1991 and Section 230 (1) of the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993 jointly limited the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court and gave the Federal High Court Exclusive jurisdiction in certain matters and these provisions were reinforced as 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.” –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979|Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999|Federal High Court (Amendment) Act Decree No. 60 of 1991|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT