May 16, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2012) Legalpedia (SC) 78716 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Tue Jul 10, 2012 Suit Number: SC. SC. 250/2009 CORAM FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI – JUSTICE, SUPREME […]
CORAM
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. KATSINA-ALU – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A.I. KATSINA-ALU – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
DAHIRU MUSDAPHER – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ATTORNEY-GENERAL, CROSS RIVER STATE APPELLANTS
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff sought the Supreme Court’s determination of the ownership of 76 Oil wells located in the Atlantic Ocean and not Oil wells located on the Bakassi Peninsula. The plaintiff claimed ownership by virtue of an agreement that predates the International Court of Justice’s Judgment that gives complete sovereignty over Bakassi Peninsula to the Cameroonian. The effect of the judgment was to exclude Cross-Rivers from the list of Nigerian’s littoral States. ?
HELD
Case dismissed.
ISSUES
1.Whether there is in existence any issue of boundary adjustment between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant in view of the binding agreement and resolution between the parties under the supervision of the 1st defendant since 2006 through its agencies.?
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the derivation revenue from the seventy-six oil wells which were previously located within the 200 meter water depth isobaths contiguous to its territory as stipulated in Sections 1 & 2 of the Allocation of Revenue (Abolition of Dichotomy) with the principle of Derivation Act 2004.?
3.Whether the order of mandatory and perpetual injunctions restraining the 1st defendant by himself or through any of its agents from excluding the plaintiff from its entitlement to 13% derivation in relation to the sharing of revenue from the Federation Accounts as a littoral state are enforceable.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHAT CONSTITUTES FRUSTRATION
“The Courts have recognised certain situations or events as listed below that constitutes frustration –
Subsequent legal changes
Outbreak of war
Destruction of the subject matter of contract
Government requisition of the subject matter of the contract
Cancellation of an expected event” PER ADEKEYE, JSC
DETERMINATION OF A LITTORAL STATE
“The determination of whether a state is a littoral state within the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a question of fact.” PER ADEKEYE, JSC
LOSS OF LITTORAL STATE: EFFECT OF
“If a state is not a littoral state it cannot be paid derivation fund.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
DEFINITION OF FRUSTRATION
“The doctrine of frustration is applicable to all categories of contracts. It is defined as the premature determination of an agreement between parties, lawfully entered into and which is in the course of operation at the time of its premature determination, owing to the occurrence of an intervening event or change of circumstances so fundamental as to be regarded by law both as striking at the root of the agreement and entirely beyond what was contemplated by the parties when they entered into the agreement” PER ADEKEYE, JSC
DEFINITION OF DECLARATORY ACTION
“It is trite law that the purpose of a declaratory action is essentially to seek an equitable relief in which the plaintiff prays the court in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction to promote or declare an existing state of affairs in law in his favour as may be entitled to a declaration, a person must show the existence of a legal right, subsisting or in future and that the right is contested.” PER ADEKEYE, JSC
REGULATION OF SOVEREIGNTY OVER BODIES OF WATER
“Sovereignty over bodies of water is regulated by four separate 1958 Conventions. They are:
The Convention of the High Seas,
The Convention on the territorial Sea and contiguous zone,
The Convention on the Continental Shelf
The Geneva Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the living resources of the High Seas.” PER RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC
WHICH STATE CAN CLAIM DERIVATION ENTITLEMENT
“By virtue of the onshore/offshore Dichotomy Abolition Act 2004, a State of the Federation can claim natural resources located within two hundred meters water depth Isobath contiguous to that State. If a State does not lie contiguous to the two hundred meters depth Isobath, she cannot claim derivation entitlement to the natural resources that lie within that territory.” PER ADEKEYE, JSC
CASES CITED
A-G Federation v. A.G. Abia State (2002) 6 NWLR (pt. 764) 543Nwokudu v. Okanu (2010) 3 NWLR (pt. 1181) 362N.B.C.I v. Standard (Nig.) Eng. Co. Ltd (2002) 8 NWLR (pt. 768) 104
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1999 Constitution.