REVENUE MOBILISATION ALLOCATION AND FISCAL COMMISSION (RMAFC) V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE AND ANOR - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

REVENUE MOBILISATION ALLOCATION AND FISCAL COMMISSION (RMAFC) V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE AND ANOR

PRINCE FEMI AGUNSOYE V. PRINCE JOSEPH BABALOLA AROJOJOYE & 0RS
March 17, 2025
MUSA MUHAMMAD USMAN OBE V. MURTALA ABDULLAHI ABUBAKAR AND 5 ORS
March 17, 2025
PRINCE FEMI AGUNSOYE V. PRINCE JOSEPH BABALOLA AROJOJOYE & 0RS
March 17, 2025
MUSA MUHAMMAD USMAN OBE V. MURTALA ABDULLAHI ABUBAKAR AND 5 ORS
March 17, 2025
Show all

REVENUE MOBILISATION ALLOCATION AND FISCAL COMMISSION (RMAFC) V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE AND ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-07) Legalpedia 18664 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Mar 31, 2023

Suit Number: SC.365/2022

CORAM

Musa Dattijo Muhammad JSC

Chima Centus Nweze JSC

Uwani Musa Abba Aji JSC

Mohammed Lawal Garba JSC

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC

PARTIES

REVENUE MOBILISATION ALLOCATION AND FISCAL COMMISSION (RMAFC)

APPELLANTS

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE 2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, MINING LAW, OIL AND GAS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, REVENUE ALLOCATION

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant is an executive body established by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) (As Altered) (1999 Constitution) with the mandate to review, from time to time, the revenue allocation formulae and principles in operation to ensure conformity with changing realities. In the course of the performance of its duty, the Appellant invited all Littoral States entitled to 13% Derivation from Exploration activities in the oil and gas sector of Nigeria. At the conclusion of the exercise, the Appellant informed stakeholders that the result of the exercise showed that Okoro Oil field in OML 112 operated by AMNI International Petroleum is located offshore Akwa Ibom State and not offshore Rivers State as was being previously reported. As a result, the Commission requests that all oil and gas productions from Okoro Oil field be reported in Akwa Ibom State for the purpose of sharing 13% derivation revenue to beneficiary States.

With the above finding, Akwa Ibom State requested for the refund of derivation revenue from Okoro oil field from July, 2008 to September 2018. The Appellant then requested the 2nd Respondent to implement the refund in favour of Akwa Ibom State Government being the derivation revenue wrongly paid to Rivers State Government for the production of Oil and Gas from Okoro oil field from July, 2008 to September, 2018.

The Commission noted the issues raised in the letter vis a viz the findings of the Inter-Agency Technical Committee and carefully worked out the attribution from July 2008 to September, 2018. The Cumulative Crude Oil Production from Okoro Oil Field was 50,139.277 barrels and 36,552, 316 mscf for Gas Production (Copy attached as Annex I). In the light of the above and having worked out the derivation in monetary terms for the period, the total amount to be refunded to Akwa Ibom State Government by Rivers State Government from Okoro Oil Field for the period from July, 2008 to September 2018 is N56,257,481,619.34 (Fifty Six Billion, Two Hundred and Fifty-Seven Million, Four Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand Six Hundred and Nineteen Naira, Thirty Four Kobo).

The 1st Respondent was not pleased with the development and took the matter to court for the just determination of the propriety or otherwise of the order to make the refund the sum quoted above as instructed by the Appellant. The 2nd Respondent entered appearance and filed her counter-affidavit to the substantive suit. The Appellant did not answer the summons, neither did it file any counter-affidavit to the Originating Summons. The Appellant in effect did not defend the summons.

The trial court in its judgment granted all the reliefs sought by the 1st Respondent. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court and appealed to the Court below and after hearing the case made out by the respective parties, the Court below unanimously dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. The Appellant was dissatisfied by the decision hence the instant appeal.

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

Ø Whether in virtue of Section 232 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the trial Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the revenue accruable from Okoro Oil Field in OML 112 is attributable to the 1st Respondent?

Ø Whether Akwa Ibom State is a necessary party to this action?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

GROUNDS OF APPEAL – WHETHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE GROUNDS OF LAW, GROUNDS OF FACT, OR MIXED LAW AND FACT

I borrow from the immortal words of Eso JSC in OGBECHIE v. ONOCHIE (1986) 2 NWLR Pt. 23 where His Lordship stated at page 484 of the NWLR thus:

“There is no doubt that it is always difficult to distinguish a ground of law from a ground of fact but what is required is to examine thoroughly the grounds of appeal in the case concerned to see whether the grounds reveal a misunderstanding by the lower Tribunal of the law or a misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted, in which case it would be a question of law, or one that would require questioning the evaluation of facts by the lower Tribunal before the application of law in which case it would amount to question of mixed law and fact. The issue of pure fact is easier to determine.”

Thus, a ground of law is one which complains of

  1. “A misunderstanding by the lower Tribunal of the law”
  1. “A misapplication of the law to the facts already proved or admitted”
  1. “A misapplication of the law to the facts admitted.”

While a ground of mixed law and fact is one “that would require questioning the evaluation of facts by the Lower Tribunal before the application of the law”. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

 

JURISDICTION – WHERE JURISDICTION IS RAISED IN CONTENTION

It is settled that where jurisdiction is raised in contention it must be speedily resolved. See UGO-NGADI v. FRN (2018) LPELR – 43903 (SC), ENUKORA v. FRN (2018) LPELR- 43822 (SC), A.G ABIA STATE & ORS v. A.G OF THE FEDERATION (2022) LPELR – 57010 (SC), OGBUJI & ANOR v. AMADI (2022) LPELR – 56591 (SC). – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

JURISDICTION – ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT

In the said AG Federation v. A.G Abia State & 35 Ors Supra, this Court reiterated its earlier position that in accordance with Section 232(1) of the 1999 CFRN (as altered), in order to clothe this Court with jurisdiction to determine a claim pursuant to the exercise of the original jurisdiction of this Court, there must not only be a dispute between “the federation and a state or between states” but must also relate to a “dispute” involving any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a “legal right depends”. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

REVENUE ALLOCATION – WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH REVENUE ALLOCATION

In the concurring judgment of His Lordship Adekeye JSC on page 167 of the NWLR after reviewing the cases on the point held that: “Revenue allocation is not one of the items over which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction as provided in Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution…”

“We have no reason to differ from the subsisting stand of this Court in the instant case.” – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

NECESSARY PARTY – WHEN A NECESSARY PARTY IS NOT MADE A PART OF THE SUIT

In HON. JUSTICE TITUS ADEWUYI OYEYEMI (RTD) & ORS v. HON. TIMOTHY OWOEYE & ANOR (2017) LPELR – 41903 (SC), an action was initiated against the officers of the Oyo State House of Assembly for confirming the appointments of the Appellants without receiving their curriculum vitae in breach of Oyo State House of Assembly Standing Rules. The Appellants, whose appointment was in issue, were not joined as parties on the contention that it is the internal operation of the Oyo State House of Assembly that was being challenged. This Court, Per Peter Odili JSC at page 48-49 Paras. B-A rejected the reasoning of the lower Courts and set aside the judgments as a nullity on the following ground: “The resultant effect is that the appellants being necessary interested parties who ought to be heard and were not joined in suit, the orders made against them by the trial judge and the entirety of the proceedings, thereby would come to naught as they had been denied of their right to fair hearing. The situation makes the stance of the Court of Appeal not to be agreed upon at this level. See OVUNWO & ANOR v. WOKO & ORS (2011) 7 SCM 207 at 231-232, NURTW & ANOR v. RTEAN & ORS (2012) 3 SCM 171 at 178-179, TANKO v. UBA (2010) 11 SCM 199 at 212. In fact, this matter of the breach, is fundamental as it shows the unassailable reason for which the decision of the Court of Appeal alongside the trial judge’s cannot be sustained as a clear miscarriage of justice has occurred. The necessary party being absent before Court and its hearing and determination, the proceedings done are evidently in breach of the appellants right to fair hearing and therefore a nullity. See ANYANWOKO v. OKOYE & ORS (2010) 1 SCM 21 at 38, VICINTO FIXED ODDS LTD v. OJO & ORS (2010) 4 SCM 122 at 135.”

There is no doubt that a Plaintiff cannot be made to proceed against a party he has no desire to sue. See GREEN v. GREEN (1987) LPELR- 1338 (SC), RE: MOGAJI (1986) LPELR-1891(SC), SIFAX (NIG) LTD & ORS v. MIGFO (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2018) LPELR- 49735(SC). However a party must be joined if there is a question that cannot be determined without him. Another relevant consideration for joining a party is that he would be bound by the decision. See GREEN v. GREEN (1987) LPELR- 1338 (SC), BUHARI & ANOR v. YUSUF & ANOR (2003) LPELR- 812(SC), CBN v. INTERSTELLA COMMINCATIONS LTD & ORS (2017) LPELR- 43940 (SC), SIFAX (NIG) LTD & ORS v. MIGFO (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2018) LPELR-49735(SC), JEGEDE & ANOR v. INEC & ORS (2021) LPELR- 55481 (SC).

Necessary parties are those in whose absence the subject matter of the proceedings would not be fairly dealt with. See REGISTERED TRUSTEES, CAC & ANOR v. ALH. SADIKU & ANOR (2002) FWLR Pt. 95 Pg. 238 at 247. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

JURISDICITON – WHEN FAILURE TO JOIN A PARTY AFFECTS JURISDICTION

In our adversarial system of jurisprudence, it is important that there should be an end to litigation on a subject matter and failure to join a party whose interests whether anticipatory or not would be affected goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC

JURISDICTION – WHERE NON-JOINDER WILL NOT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT

However, where the facts pleaded or relied upon by parties to an action or facts deposed to in an affidavit in support of an Originating Summons are such that the matter can conveniently and effectually be adjudicated upon without the joinder of a third party or person who may be interested in the subject matter of an action, the non-joinder or failure to join such other person will not vitiate the action and the jurisdiction of the Court seized of the matter will not be affected or eroded particularly where there is a competent Plaintiff/Claimant and Defendant who is in law capable of defending and who has interest in the matter which makes it justifiable for the invocation of Section 6 (6) (b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) against the defendant who caused the injury leading to accrual of action to the plaintiff. The Court will in such circumstances proceed to hear and determine the suit or action on the basis of the parties in dispute before the Court or Tribunal… – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC

NEESSARY PARTY – MEANING OF A NECESSARY PARTY

A necessary party is someone whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the issues before the Court. It is a party, in the absence of whom, the claim cannot be effectually and completely determined. NNN Ltd. v. Ademola (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 507) 70, 83, Uku v. Okumagba (1974) 3 SC 35, Ige v. Farinde (1994) 7 – 8 SCNJ (pt. 2) 284, Coker v. Adeyemo and Anor (1968) NMLR 323, 324, Oduola v Coker [1981] 5 SC 197. – Per C. C. Nweze, JSC

NECESSARY PARTY – MEANING OF NECESSARY PARTY

A necessary party is someone whose presence is essential for the effectual and complete determination of the issues before the Court. It is a party, in the absence of whom, the claim cannot be effectually and completely determined. A necessary party is one who is not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but whom in his absence, the proceedings cannot fairly and judiciously be decided. That is to say that the question to be settled in an action between the existing parties cannot be properly settled unless the necessary party to the particular claim is joined. See SIFAX (NIG) LTD & ORS V. MIGFO (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2018) LPELR- 49735(SC) (PP. 80-81, PARAS. E-A) (P. 107, PARAS. D-F).

 

The failure to join as a party a person who ought to have been so joined gives rise to the mistake of non-joinder of party. The fact that a necessary party to the action has not been joined will not render the action a nullity. The proceedings of a Court of law will not be a nullity on the ground of lack of competence of the Court or lack of jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff fails to join a party who ought to have been joined. The Court cannot dismiss a suit because a party who ought to have been joined was left out. See Per OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE, JSC, in BELLO V. INEC & ORS (2010) LPELR-767(SC) (PP. 77-78, PARAS. F-D). – Per U. M. Abba Aji, JSC

NECESSARY PARTIES – WHAT CONSTITUTES NECESSARY PARTIES

As a general principle, in order to ensure fairness and justice in a case and conclusively decide issues in the case, all persons who may be entitled to or share some interest in the subject matter which are likely to be affected by a decision in the case, are necessary parties who should be joined as parties to the case in line with the fundamental requirement of the right to fair hearing. Ojukwu V. Govt. Lagos State (No 1) (1985) 2 NWLR (pt. 10) 806 (SC), Santa Fe Drilling Nig. Ltd. v. Awala (1999) 6 NWLR (pt. 608) 623, E. F. P. co. Ltd. v. N. D. I. C. (2007) 9 NWLR (pt. 1039) 216 (SC).

Although an action is not rendered incompetent simply because all the necessary parties have not been joined, a plaintiff has the duty to bring to the Court, all parties whose presence is crucial to the resolution of the material issues in his case and failure to do so, may render the action liable to be struck out. See Adisa v. Oyinwola (2000) 6 SC (pt. II) 47 Ayorinde v. Oni (2000) 2 SC, 33, Obla v. Otagoyi (2007) 5 NWLR (pt. 1027) 304, Mobil Oil, Plc. V. D. E. R. Ltd. (2004) NWLR (pt. 853) 142. – Per M. L. Garba, JSC

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

  1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
  2. Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT 

Comments are closed.