Latest Supreme Court Judgement: Whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to determine land matter

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA VS. RAHAMANIYYA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD

Suit no: 632/2017

 LEGALPEDIA ELECTRONIC CITATION: (2020) Legalpedia (SC) 10815

AREAS OF LAW:

Appeal, Constitutional Law, Court, Interpretation Of Statutes, Jurisdiction, Land Law, Law Of Banking, Practice And Procedure

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant as Plaintiff at the Sokoto State High Court, instituted a Writ of Summons against the Defendant/Respondent, asking the court for; “a declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the Club-house, fuel dump, generator and generator house and large portion of undeveloped land at the Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Quarters (Bado Estate), along Birnin Kehbi Road, Sokoto; the sum of ten million naira being damages for trespass on the said land by the Defendant; an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its servants, agents, privies, whosoever or howsoever called from drilling or further drilling, construction, selling, mortgaging, leasing or any dealings with all the large portion of undeveloped land, club-house, generator and generator house, fuel dump at Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Quarters (Bado Estate) along Birnin Kebbi Road, Sokoto; Cost of the action; and any other order or orders that the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. Upon being served with the court’s processes, the Respondent filed its memorandum of appearance together with a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit. The learned trial Judge took arguments from both parties and overruled the preliminary objection. The Respondent appealed against the decision but the court below dismissed same for lacking in merit. Subsequent to the decision of the court below, the learned trial Judge resumed hearing of the suit on the merit. Both parties joined issues in their pleadings. At the hearing of the suit, the Appellant called a total of 3 witnesses in proof of its case while” the Respondent called 2 witnesses. The circumstances surrounding the facts that gave rise to the dispute between the parties is that by the Daily Trust National Newspaper of 13th June, 2007 admitted in evidence as Exhibit PI, the Plaintiff advertised and invited the general public to bid for sale of the Plaintiffs residential houses in 18 locations across the country. The Defendant participated in the bid wherein the Plaintiffs Senior Staff Central Bank of Nigeria Quarters, Bado was sold to the Defendant through public bidding. It is the case of the Plaintiff that apart from the Senior Staff Central Bank of Nigeria quarters Bado, no other property was included in advertisement dated 13/6/2007. The cause of disagreement between the parties was therefore, whether apart from the senior staff quarters of Bado Estate sold to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, the clubhouse, generator and generator house, fuel dump and the large portion of undeveloped land were included. At the close of hearing, the learned trial Judge in his considered judgment, granted all the reliefs sought by the Appellant and dismissed the Respondent’s counter-claim. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the Respondent filed an appeal at the court below, which allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the learned trial Judge on the ground that the Sokoto State High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the Appellant in view of section 25(1) (p), (q) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Piqued-by the decision of the court below, the Appellant has filed this appeal before this court.

 

HELD

Appeal Allowed.

ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

• Whether in the light of section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended,) the learned Justices of the lower court erred in law when they held in the lead judgment that, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained suit No. SS/99/2014?

 

RATIONES

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED WHERE A COURT LACKS JURISDICTION

“The law is indeed well settled that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental in any proceeding and consequently raises the question of competence of the court to adjudicate in the matter. It follows therefore that where a court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain a case, such proceedings becomes a nullity ab initio no matter how well conducted and decided.    Jurisdiction is the live wire of adjudication which should be determined at the earliest opportunity. See Madukolu & Ors V Nkemdilim & Ors (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Skenconsult (Nig.) Ltd V Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6; Goldmark (Nig.) Ltd V Ibafon Co. Ltd (2012) 10 NWLR (PT 1308) PAGE 291; Nigerian Union Of Road Transport Workers & Anor V Road Transport Employers Association Of Nigeria & Ors (2012) 10 NWLR (PT 1307) 170.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF COURT– DETERMINANT OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT

“It is also well settled in law that in cases initiated vide a writ of summons and a statement of claim, such as the present case, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the plaintiffs statement of claim. See Emeka V Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (PT 1331) Page 55; Adeyemi V Opeyori (1976) 9 – 10 SC 3191 51; Tukur V Government Of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) 517 and Orthopedic Hospital Management Board V Garba (2002) 14 NWLR (PT 788) 538 at 563.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

QUESTION OF JURISDICTION – MODE OF DETERMINING THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION

“Put differently, the position of the law is that where pleadings are filed in a suit, as in this case, the question of jurisdiction is determined by the plaintiffs statement of claim and not the defendant’s statement of defence. See Izenkwe V Nnadozie (1953) 14 WACA 361.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF COURT – SOURCES OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT

“The law is trite that the jurisdiction of any court is derived from the statute creating the court or from any other statute specifically conferring such jurisdiction on the court.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – PURPORT OF SECTION 251(1)(P), (Q) AND (R)  OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION ON THE  JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

“Section 251(1) provides as follows:-

‘Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters –

(p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies;

(q) subject to the provision of this constitution, the operation and interpretation of this constitution in so    far as it affects the Federal government or any of its agencies;

(q) 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.’

In considering these provisions of the Constitution, this court, per Mohammed, JSC held in the case of Adetayo V Ademola (2010) 4 (PT 1) MJSC 107 AT 119 – 120 and I totally agree and adopt as follows:-

‘On the face of these provisions of the Constitution, it appears that impression has been created that the Federal High Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts in Nigeria in any civil cause or proceedings in which the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party. However, a very close, careful and proper interpretation or construction of the provisions would show that this is not necessarily the true position. This is because in my view, it is the facts and circumstances of each case that will determine whether or not it is a case within or outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.’

In applying the above provisions of the Constitution, I hold the considered view that for an argument to be sustained as touching any action or proceeding within the ambit of section 251(1)(p), (q) and (r) such action must relate to or affect the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION – RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

“The law is trite that in the interpretation of Constitution, the court is to adopt the broad and liberal approach. Where the words used in the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, they ought to be given their ordinary meaning. See Mohammed V Olawunmi (1990) 2 NWLR (PT 133) 458, Rabiu V State (1980) 2 NCLR 293; Acqua Ltd V Ondo State Sports Council (1988) 4 NWLR (PT 91) 622; Ishola V Ajiboye (1994) 1 NWLR (PT 352) 506.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

“In construing the import of the above provisions, this court, per Nweze, JSC held in the case of Wema Securities And Finance Plc. Y Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation (2015) 16 NWLR (PT 1484) 93 at 130 – 131 as follows:-

‘In my humble view, while it rightly found that the respondent is an agency of the Federal Government FMBN v Olloh (supra); Idoniboye-Odu v NNPC (supra); its conclusion that the mere presence of that agency of the Federal Government robbed the trial court of jurisdiction must rankle all liberal Constitutional jurisprudence and juridical exegetes. As indicated above, prior to the 1979 Constitution, section 7 of the Federal High Court Act, Cap 134, LFN, 1990, set out the limited jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Section 251 (1) (supra) now delineates the jurisprudence of that court and circumscribe it to only eighteen items. Such matters are, exclusively reserved for the Federal high Court…. In effect, the draftsperson, deliberately itemized the matters which are intended to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of that court or simply put, therefore, that court is a court of enumerated jurisdiction and, a fortiori, its exclusive jurisdiction is expressly tied to those items enumerated there under. As such, in the exercise of its said exclusive jurisdiction, that court (the Federal High Court) can only orbit within the universe of those enumerated issues and to others as may be conferred upon it by an Act  of the  National Assembly          . However, actions on simple contract are not included in those items enumerated above, Adelekan v EUC -Line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (pt 993) 33 at 52; as such, the court cannot arrogate to itself a jurisdiction only exercisable by the trial court or a State High Court on such simple contractual matters as the one which the appellant tabled before the trial court.’”

• PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, LAND LAW, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF COURT – COURT WITH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN PROCEEDINGS IN LAND DISPUTES

“My Lords, I hold the view that in the light of the provision of section 39(1) of the Land Use Act, 1978, it is the State High Courts that have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain proceedings in respect of land disputes. It is instructive to note that the Land Use Act, 1978 was promulgated specifically to deal with the control and management of land in Nigeria. The said section 39(1)of the Land Use Act provides as follows:-

‘The High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the following proceedings:-

(a)        proceedings in respect of any land the subject of a statutory right of occupancy grated by the Governor or deemed to be granted by him under this Act; and for the purposes of this paragraph, proceedings includes proceedings for a declaration of title to statutory right of occupancy;

(b)        proceedings to determine any question as to the persons entitled to compensation payable for improvements on land under the Act.

(2)    All laws, including Rules of court relating to the practice and procedure of the High Court shall apply in respect of proceedings to which this section relates and the law shall have effect with such modifications as would enable effect to be given to the provisions of this section.”

It is quite clear from the above provision that it is the State High Court which has exclusive jurisdiction to determine dispute in land matters particularly where such dispute relate to declaration of title to a statutory right of occupancy and not the Federal High court.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, LAND LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT– WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN CASES ON LAND DISPUTE

“The National Assembly has not yet conferred any additional jurisdiction in land matters on the Federal High Court. The Federal High Court can therefore not assume jurisdiction over matters relating to land disputes where there is no statute conferring such jurisdiction on it. I have found no provision in either section 251(1) (p) (q) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution or section 39 of the Land Use Act 1978 conferring jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to entertain proceedings for declaration of title to land.” PER J. I. OKORO, J.S.C.

JURISDICTION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – MODE OF DETERMINING THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT IN AN ACTION

“It follows that in determining the exclusivity of the Federal High Court in an action or proceedings the subject matter as well as the parties must be considered together. The situation above stated is all the more crucial since where the Federal Government or any of its agencies such as the appellant is a party to a suit, unless the subject matter of the suit relates to one of the specified matters upon which the exclusive jurisdiction is conferred in the Federal High Court by Section 251 (1) (a) (s) CFRN, the Federal High Court will lack jurisdiction to entertain the matter and it is the State High Court that will have jurisdiction in such matters. See Madukolu V Nkemdilim (1962) 2 ALL NLR 587; Diamond Bank V Ugochukwu (2010) 2 SCNJ 359; Agbule V Warri Refinery (2012) 12 SCNJ 783; Bwemoh V Akande (2017) 1 SCNJ 207.” PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF COURT – DUTY OF COURT IN DETERMINING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A COURT HAS JURISDICTION OR NOT

“Again to be said is that in the determination of the question whether a court has jurisdiction or not recourse must be made to the statute that created the court. Throwing more light to that statement, the Supreme Court held in Adetayo V Ademola (2010) 4 SCNJ 32 thus:-

‘The law is trite that jurisdiction of any court is derived from the statute creating the court from any other statute specifically conferring such jurisdiction on the Court.’

See also Oloruntoba-Oju V Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 SCNJ 1 at 29.” PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – STATUTORY PROVISION(S) ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT TO DETERMINE ACTIONS INVOLVING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENCIES

“In the matter at hand, the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear and determine actions involving the Federal Government or any of its agencies is in issue and the relevant statute which created the Federal High Court is the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended, thus recourse must be made to the constitution. I shall for clarity refer and quote the relevant section of the constitution for our purpose. Section 251 (1) provides thus:-

‘Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters –

(p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies;

(q) subject to the provision of this constitution, the operation and interpretation of this constitution in so far as it affects the Federal government or any of its agencies;

(q) 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.

Provided that nothing in the provision of paragraph (p), (q) and (r) of this subsections shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity’

Then the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 Section 1(1) provides thus:-

‘There is established for Nigeria, a body known as the ‘CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA1 which is further reinforced by the provision of Section 40 of the same Act which provides, “the Bank may Act generally as agent for the Federal Government.’

There is no gainsaying that a community reading of the two Sections situates the appellant is an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria. See Savannah Bank Of Nigeria Plc V Central Bank Of Nigeria (2009) 6 NWLR (PT.1137) 237.” PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, COURT, LAW OF BANKING, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE STATE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER A BANK EVEN IF IT IS REGARDED AS A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY

“A further illumination on the requirement when determining the jurisdiction or the Federal High Court was made effectively by the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Mortgage Bank Of Nigeria Limited V P. N. Olloh (2002) 4 SC (PT. II) 117 as follows:-

‘Even if the appellant were to be regarded as a Federal Government agency, it must be recognized that it is a bank by definition and by virtue of the proviso to Section 230 (i) (d) of the 1979 Constitution as amended (now Section 251) (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution), The State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the action against the Appellant Bank being a cause founded on a customer/bank relationship.’”

• PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

“The law is that in determining whether or not a matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court regard must be had to the plaintiff’s claims as contained in the writ of summons and statement of claim.” PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT MAY EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS THAT DO NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF ANY EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES

“See Adetayo V Ademofa (2010) 15 NWLR (PT.1215) 169 AT 190, per Mohammed JSC at pages 191 – 192 said thus:-

‘Apply this provision to the claims of the plaintiffs/appellants in the instant case although the claims indeed include declaration and injunction, there is nothing being claimed that relate or affect the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies.’”

• PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER EVERY ACTION AFFECTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES

“Again, to be said is that there is no provision that confers automatic and exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in every action by or against the Federal Government irrespective of the subject matter. The case of NEPA V Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR (PT.798) 100 – 101 per Tobi, JSC has settled whatever confusion as to what to do or what path to trod wherein the Supreme Court stated as follows:-

‘As I indicated above, another important area of the subject matter of litigation. In my view, for the Federal High Court to have exclusive jurisdiction, the matter must be a civil matter arising from the administration, management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. The matter must arise from the operation and interpretation of the Constitution. And finally, the matter must arise from any action or proceeding or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative actions or decisions by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.’”

• PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS OUTSIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION

“Stated differently, once the cause of action is not within the confines of Section 251(1) CFRN, there is no interloping into those provisions so as to donate jurisdiction to the Federal High Court as if to say that in all cases where the Federal Government or any of its matter the nature of the plaintiffs claim. See Onuorah V K. R. P. C. Ltd. (2002) 18 NWLR (PT.921) 393, Kakfh V PDF (2014) 15 NWLR (PT.1429) 374 at 414.” PER M. U.PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, COURT, LAND LAW

 

JURISDICTION – COURTS CONFERRED WITH JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN LAND DISPUTES

“The Courts conferred with jurisdiction to entertain disputes between Nigerians in exercising their right to acquire and use land under the Act are clearly specified therein. The relevant Sections in this  respect are Sections 39, 41 and 42 respectively which states:-

‘”JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURTS AND OTHER COURTS”.  On the jurisdiction of the High Courts, by section 39(1), the High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction  in respect  of the  following  proceedings-

(a) proceedings in respect of any land the subject of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor or deemed to be granted by him under this Act; and for the purposes of this paragraph, proceedings    includes    proceedings    for a declaration of title to a statutory right of occupancy;

(b) proceedings to determine an}’ question as to the persons entitled to compensation payable for improvements on land under the Act. 

(2)  All laws,  including  Rules  of Court, regulating the practice and procedure of the High Court shall apply in respect of proceedings to which this Section relates and the laws shall have effect with such modifications as would enable effect to be given to the provisions of this Section 41.’”

–  PER U. M. A. AJI, J.S.C.

 

JURISDICTION, COURT, LAND LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE LAND DISPUTES

“In fact, the purpose which Sections 39, 41 and 42 of the Land Use Act are designed to serve are very clear. In other words, while the State High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over lands in Urban Areas by virtue of Section 39(1) of the Land Use Act, that Court shares jurisdiction with only the Area Courts and Customary Courts or other Courts of equivalent jurisdiction by virtue of both the jurisdiction of the  State  High  Court under  Section  272  of the 1999 Constitution and the jurisdiction conferred on  the Area Courts and Customary Courts by virtue of Section 41 of the Act. As there is nothing in these Sections 39, 41 and 42 of the Land Use Act that conferred any jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to entertain land causes or matters, I entirely agree with the Court below that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine any dispute on declaration of title to land. See Per MOHAMMED, J.S.C in Adetayo & Ors V. Ademola & Ors (2010) LPELR-155(SC).   Same issue   also   came   before   this   court in Emejuru & Anor V. Abraham & Ors (2018) LPELR-4633Q (SC), wherein it was decided that that the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction in land matters or declaration of title to land and trespass thereto.” PER U. M. A. AJI, J.S.C.

 

 

STATUTES REFERRED TO:

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria1999

Land Use Act 1978