CORAM

---

Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

---

PARTIES

---

NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH

APPELLANTS 

---

1. PRINCE OLUSUNMADE AKIN-OLUGBADE

2. DR. BOLUSANMI AKIN-OLUGBADE

3. DR. TOLULOPE AKIN-OLUGBADE

4. DR. ADESEGUN AKIN-OLUGBADE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LAND LAW, CONTRACT LAW, TENANCY, JURISDICTION, FAIR HEARING, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case originated from a suit filed by the Respondents (as Plaintiffs) at the Lagos State High Court on 25/5/95. The Respondents claimed possession of six flats situated at 27 Modupe Street, Fola Agoro Somolu, Lagos, as well as mesne profit and/or damages for use and occupation from 1st April 1995 until the Appellant (Nigerian Institute of Medical Research) vacated the premises. The Appellant was a tenant of the Respondents and had voluntarily terminated the tenancy by giving three months’ notice but failed to vacate the premises after the expiration of the notice.

The trial Court entered judgment against the Appellant on 7/11/03. Subsequently, the Appellant filed a motion before the trial Court to set aside the judgment for want of jurisdiction, but this application was denied. The Appellant then appealed both the judgment and the ruling to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal, in its judgment delivered on 4/7/06, dismissed the appeal and affirmed both the judgment and ruling of the trial Court. The Court of Appeal had also struck out the reply brief filed by the Appellant. The Appellant then brought the matter before the Supreme Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

2. The Supreme Court held that the High Court of Lagos State, and not the Federal High Court, had jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Respondents as they were simple contractual claims arising from a tenancy relationship.

3. The Supreme Court further held that there was no miscarriage of justice when the Court of Appeal struck out the Appellant’s reply brief, especially since the Court of Appeal considered the issues raised in the Reply Brief and ruled in favor of the Appellant on that specific issue.

4. The Supreme Court awarded costs of one million Naira against the Appellant and in favor of the Respondents.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial Court had jurisdiction in entertaining this suit.

2. Whether the Appellant was denied fair hearing when the Court of Appeal discountenanced its reply brief before judgment was delivered.

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION – DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE COURT TO ENTERTAIN A MATTER INVOLVING A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY

---

The law has since moved from its position in NEPA v. Edegbero (supra) and Shell Petroleum Development Co. Ltd (supra) which was that once a party in a suit is the Federal Government or any of its agencies, the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction. This Court has now adopted a liberal attitude to hold, that even though the Federal High Court is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction on matters bordering on the administration, management and control of the Federal Government or its agencies under Section 230(1)(q) [in pari materia with Section 251(1)(p)] the jurisdiction so conferred on the Federal High Court does not admit or extend to matters of simple contracts between parties.– Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION OVER SIMPLE CONTRACTS – POSITION ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND CONTRACTUAL DISPUTES

---

The question whether the respondent is a subsidiary or agent of the NNPC or not has no role when a consideration of the jurisdiction of the Court is being made. This is because, as already stated above, the determining factor the Court, which in this case, is one founded on breach of contract… There is not any 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. – Per UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.

 

---

FEDERAL HIGH COURT – NATURE AND EXTENT OF JURISDICTION AS A COURT OF ENUMERATED JURISDICTION

---

….Before we return to this question, we must first return to the implication of the drafting technique in Section 251 (supra). The point must be noted that the draftsman of that section painstakingly itemized the subject matters that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. In all, that section vested exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in eighteen major items…. The implication of this technique is that the said Court (Federal High Court) is actually a Court of enumerated jurisdiction, that is, a Court whose jurisdiction is not only delimited by statute but whose jurisdiction is delineated in relation only to the subject matter enumerated therein – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION DETERMINATION – RELEVANCE OF THE NATURE OF CLAIM VERSUS IDENTITY OF PARTIES

---

The effect of the circumscription of the jurisdiction of the Court to those eighteen major items is that whenever the question of jurisdiction of the Court is canvassed, attention ought to be focused on the subject matter of the suit. If the subject matter of the suit cannot be pitch forked into any of those eighteen major items, then that Court is not the proper forum for the ventilation of the action….– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

SIMPLE CONTRACT CLAIMS – APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR ADJUDICATION REGARDLESS OF PARTIES

---

Thus, where the cause of action of a plaintiff does not fit into one of the enumerated areas of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as stated in Section 251 (1) of the Constitution, the fact that one of the parties to the action is the Federal Government or an agency of the Federal Government is irrelevant and it cannot give the Federal High Court jurisdiction over the subject matter. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

FAIR HEARING – TEST FOR DETERMINING BREACH OF RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING

---

The true test of a fair hearing, it was suggested by counsel, is the impression of a reasonable person who was present at the trial, whether from his observation, justice has been done in the case. We feel obliged to agree with this. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

 

---

TENANCY DISPUTES – APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION IN CONTRACTUAL TENANCY MATTERS

---

Accordingly, it is my humble view that the claim of the respondent in the present case was a simple claim for arrears of rent and mesne profit for an overuse of the respondent’s property. It is therefore a simple contractual claim based on a tenancy relationship between the parties in the case and has nothing to do with the administration, management and control of the Federal Government or its agency. This is in line with the new approach of the apex Court in the above cited current or latest authorities. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION – THRESHOLD NATURE OF JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENCE OF ABSENCE

---

It is settled law that jurisdiction is a threshold issue, and where a trial is conducted without jurisdiction, the whole proceedings amount to a nullity however well conducted. Jurisdiction is the pillar upon which an entire case stands. Instituting an action in a Court of law presupposes that the Court has jurisdiction. But once the defendant shows that the Court has no jurisdiction, the case crumbles. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION – DETERMINATION BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM

---

It is now well settled that the jurisdiction of the Court is determined by the plaintiffs claim as disclosed in the writ of summons or the endorsement in the statement of claim.– Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

 

---

FEDERAL HIGH COURT – LACK OF JURISDICTION IN SIMPLE CONTRACT MATTERS

---

It is trite law that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain matters predicated on simple contract. It cannot hear and determine a claim for specific performance of contract or for damages for breach of contract. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

INGREDIENTS FOR EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION – FACTORS A COURT MUST SATISFY

---

To exercise jurisdiction in a matter, the Court must satisfy itself of the following ingredients: (a) it is properly constituted as to the number or qualification of its membership; (b) any condition precedent for its exercise of jurisdiction has been fulfilled; (c) the subject-matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and (d) the case or matter is brought to the Court by the due process of the law. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.

 

---

JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT – SCOPE AND LIMITATION

---

The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is donated by the Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The opening part of the section reads: ‘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 cases and matters.’ – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

DETERMINATION OF PARTY’S CASE – HOLISTIC CONSIDERATION OF PLEADINGS

---

It is trite law that in determining the case made by a party, a Court must read all the paragraphs of the pleadings of the party together to get a flowing story of the party and not a few paragraphs in isolation and it is the totality of the pleadings that states the case of the party. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

2. Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993

3. Court of Appeal Rules 2002

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---