CORAM
PARTIES
MATTHEW IKPEKPE APPELLANTS
1. WARRI REFINERY & PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED2. DR. DENA RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
The Plaintiff/Appellant who was a casual driver with the 1st Respondent, Warri Refinery and Petrochemical Company Ltd; then as Petrochemical section of the NNPC at Ekpan, applied for employment as driver 11 on the 1st Respondent’s salary grade level 16/1. The Appellant was interviewed along with others for regular employment with the Corporation. However, on or about 30th December, 1986, he was dismissed from service. In June, 1987, he was invited by the 1st Respondent’s letter to attend a medical test, a condition upon handing over to him his letter of employment by the 1st Respondent which letter was alleged at the material time to be in the custody of the 2nd Respondent, an employee of the 1st Respondent assigned to the Petrochemical section of NNPC, Ekpan as its Project Manager. The Appellant alleged that he passed the medical test conducted and a medical report was issued to him which automatically entitled him to be employed as driver 11, but that the 2nd Respondent withheld the letter of employment issued by the 1st Respondent to the Appellant without any just cause, consequent upon which he instituted an action at the High Court of Delta State wherein he claimed the following reliefs; a declaration that the Plaintiff is entitled to be employed by the 1st Defendant as driver with effect from 12th day of June, 1987; order of specific performance of the contract of employment of Plaintiff by the 1st Defendant upon the successful medical test; and damages of N500,000.00. The Respondent denied the claim, that they never issued any employment letter to the Appellant and that the medical test conducted is not a guarantee for employment. The trial court gave judgment in favour of the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Benin Division, which allowed the appeal on grounds that the State High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and set aside the decision of the trial court. Further dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below, the Appellant has appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether section 230(1) (P) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree No 107 of 1993 now section 251 (1) (P) OF THE 1999 Constitution applies to action founded on breach of contract and specific performance for which the State High Court enjoys jurisdiction in line with the decision in Felix Onuorah v Kaduna Refinery and Petrochemical Co. Ltd (2005) All FWLR(pt 256) 1356. Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that section 230(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 as amended by the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree (Decree 107) of 1993 vested jurisdiction in the Federal High Court rather than the State High Court in the appellant’s action seeking declaratory reliefs and specific performance against the respondents when the 1st Respondent is an agency of the Federal Government.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – WHETHER THE LEAVE OF COURT IS REQUIRED TO RAISE AN ISSUE OF JURISDICTION ON APPEAL
“It is not the duty of the court to proffer argument for the respondents in support of the notice of preliminary objection or the issues raised therein. But even if there was argument in support, the law is trite that issue of jurisdiction is constitutional or statutory and therefore a matter of law. The appellant needed no leave to raise same. Moreover, issue of jurisdiction was the main and probably the only decision of the lower court. It is my view that the said issue 1 was properly raised by the appellant See Agbule v Warri Refinery & Petrochemical Company Ltd (2012) LPELR -20625 (SC), (2013) 6 NWLR (pt 1350) 318, NNPC & anor v Orhiowasele & ors (2013) 13 NWLR (pt 1371) 211 Wema Securities & Finance Plc v Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Co. (2015) LPELR – 24833 (SC), Western Steel Works Ltd & anor v Iron Steel Workers Ltd (1987) 2 NWLR (pt 179) 188, Aderibigbe v Abidoye (2009) 10 NWLR (pt 1150) 592.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT – IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION OF COURT
“The law is trite that jurisdiction is a threshold issue and livewire that determines the authority of a court of law or tribunal to entertain a case before it and it is only when a court is imbued or conferred with the necessary jurisdiction by the Constitution or law that it will have the judicial power and authority to entertain, hear and adjudicate upon any cause or matter brought before it by the parties. Where a court proceeds to hear and determine a matter without the requisite jurisdiction, it amounts to an exercise in futility and the proceedings and judgment generated therefrom are null, void and of no effect no matter how well conducted. See Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria & anor (2002) 7 NWLR (pt 766) 273, Chelim & anor v Gobang (2009) 12 NWLR (pt 1156) 435, Utih v Onoyivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (pt 166) 206, Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd & anor v Leventis Technical Co. Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (pt 244) 675.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINANT OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT
“This is so because it is the claim of the Plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. See Adetayo & ors v Ademola & ors (2010) 15 NWLR (pt 1215) 169, Abia State Transport Corporation & ors v Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 9 NWLR (pt 1145) P.I., Dr. Salik v Idris & ors (2004) 15 NWLR (pt 1429) 36.”
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT- WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN MATTERS RELATING TO SIMPLE CONTRACT
“There is no doubt that by the above provision i.e. section 230(1) (s) of Decree 107 of 1993 which is in pari materia with section 251(1) (s) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) 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 shall be brought before the Federal High Court. I have given a thorough examination of a plethora of cases of this court on this issue and there is a consistent pronouncement that the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to simple contracts.”
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT -IS THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT CONFERRED WITH EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN MATTERS ARISING FROM SIMPLE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT?
“In a simple contract of employment as in the instant case, there is nothing in section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution (as amended) which shows that the Federal High Court is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters arising therefrom. Rather it is the State High court which continues to have jurisdiction to entertain issues connected therewith as brought by the parties for adjudication.
COURTS – NEED FOR INTERMEDIATE COURTS TO PRONOUNCE ON ALL ISSUES BEFORE IT
“This court has stated in quite a number of cases that intermediate courts should pronounce on all issues placed before it. It should not restrict it to one or more issues which its opinion may dispose of the matter. This is to give the apex court the benefit of their views in the matter should there be the need to consider other issues not determined by the intermediate court. See Chief Adebisi Adegbuyi v All Progressives Congress & ors (2014) LPELR – 24214 (SC) Xtoudos Services Nig Ltd v Taisei W A Ltd (2005) WRN 46 at 37, Edem v Canon Balls Ltd (2005) 12 NWLR (pt 938) 27.”
JURISDICTION OF COURT – DUTY OF A COURT WHEN IT DISCOVERS IT LACKS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A MATTER
“I must also observe that this court has said on several occasions that when the penultimate court finds out that it or the trial High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case it should say so and proceed to give a decision on the merits. This is the procedure that must always be followed, so that if it turns out that the Court of Appeal was wrong the Supreme Court would have the benefit of a judgment on the merits from that court. Where this is not done as in this case and the Supreme Court finds that the Court of Appeal was wrong on jurisdiction, the only order the top court can make is to send the case back to the Court of Appeal. This comes with huge costs and delay. See Isah v INEC & 3ors (2014) 1-2 SC (Pt. iv) p.101,Brawal shipping (Nig) Ltd v Onwadike Co. Ltd (2000) 6SC(Pt. ii)p.133”.
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – WHETHER LEAVE OF COURT IS REQUIRED TO BE FIRST SOUGHT AND OBTAINED IN AN APPEAL ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
“The issue of jurisdiction is no doubt not just an issue of law; it is a substantial issue of law. Appeal on it is therefore one of law which the appellant, in an appeal from the court below to the appellate court does not need leave first sought and obtained to appeal on.”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT