May 16, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2012) Legalpedia (SC) 81380 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT ABUJA Thu Dec 13, 2012 Suit Number: SC. 130/2005 CORAM GEORGE BAPTIST AYODOLA […]
CORAM
GEORGE BAPTIST AYODOLA COKER
PARTIES
BENSON AGBULE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant was terminated by a letter and he instituted an action at the High Court, claiming a declaration that the purported termination is unconstitutional, unlawful, ultra vires, null and void, an order for the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff all emoluments and entitlements and an order of reinstatement of the Plaintiff. The Defendant raised a preliminary objection on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case since it was an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria. In a considered judgment, the trial court found in favour of the Plaintiff granting the reliefs sought. Dissatisfied, the Defendant lodged an appeal in the Court of Appeal and the Plaintiff also cross- appealed on the award of N1.5 million as general damages and challenged same on grounds that the trial court having granted re-instatement cannot also grant the sum which was not claimed by the Plaintiff. The lower court held that the award of the N1.5 million which was not claimed by the Plaintiff/Appellant was made in error. The court in the result therefore struck out the Appellant’s claim. Further dissatisfied with the said judgment, the Appellant has now appealed to this court.
HELD
Appeal dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were justified in the interpretation of Section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree 107 of 1993 to hold that in all matters affecting Federal Government or its agencies only the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain Appellant’s claim as couched and not the Delta State High Court? Whether the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were justified in their interpretation of Section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended by Decree 107 of 1993 in holding that Warri Refining and Petrochemical Ltd, the Respondent herein, is a Federal Government Agency that robs the State High Court jurisdiction from entertaining the Appellant’s Claim? Whether the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were justified in their interpretation of Section 230(1) 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree 107 of 1993 in holding that the claim of Appellant challenged the validity of the executive and administrative actions or decisions of the Federal Government or its agencies which excluded the jurisdiction of the State high Court from entertaining the Appellant’s Claim. Whether the Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal correctly applied the decision of NEPA Vs. Edegbero to the case of the Appellant in holding that the State High court lack the jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant claim by virtue of Section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree 107 of 1993.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
“It is trite law that the issue of jurisdiction is constitutional and therefore a matter of law”.
FEDERAL HIGH COURT – EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
“Jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal High Court to the exclusion of any other court in, inter alia, any action or proceeding for declaration or injunction affecting the validity of executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies. See again the decision in the case of University of Abuja V. Ologe (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.445) 706 at 722”.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT
“It is also trite law and well settled that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the plaintiff’s claim before it. See the case of Akeem V. University of Ibadan (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt.829) 584.
FEDERAL HIGH COURT – DETERMINATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
“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 proceedings for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decisions by the Federal Government, or any of its agencies”.
ADMINISTRATION/MANAGEMENT – MEANING OF ADMINISTRATION/MANAGEMENT
“Administration is a large term in business and commerce. So too management. Etymologically, the words are synonymous in our context. Administration is the management or direction of the affairs of a business. Management is the art or practice of managing especially a business. Entering into a contract of employment with an employee is a business relationship, which clearly comes within the section 230(1)(q) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree 107 of 1993.”
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION – EFFECT OF AN ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION
“The question of jurisdiction is trite and well settled in the locus classical case of Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR (Pt. 4) 587. In the absence of jurisdiction, the court will be acting in futility no matter how well a proceeding is conducted. The product of such a proceeding in otherwords is a nullity. The cases of Trustees, P.A.W. V. Trustees A.A.C.C. (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt 790) 424, App V. Ogunsola (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt 761) and Lawal V. Oke (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 88 are all relevant in support.
JURISDICTION – FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION – DUTY OF THE COURT WHEN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS RAISED
“Jurisdiction is a question of law. It is a threshold issue, very fundamental, the livewire of a suit. Where a court does not have jurisdiction over a matter before it and it proceeds to hear and determine the matter, the whole proceedings no matter how well decided would amount to a nullity. This is premised on the position of the law that a judgment given without jurisdiction creates no legal obligations. Such a judgment confers no rights on any of the parties. Jurisdiction is very important, and so it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the court of first instance on appeal and even in the Supreme Court for the first time. See: Adeyemi v. Opeyori 1975 9-10 SC p.31 Usman Dan Fodio University v. Kraus Thompson Organisation Ltd. 2001 15 NWLR pt. 736 p.305. Once raised proceedings should be put on hold and the issue of jurisdiction resolved quickly. In the court of first instance, usually the High court jurisdiction is raised by the entry of conditional appearance, or in the pleading or by an application on Notice”.
JURISDICTION – HOW CAN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION BE RAISED IN APPELLATE COURTS
“In the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court jurisdiction can be raised as a ground of appeal and formulating an issue on it, thereafter incorporating arguments on it in the brief of argument. All courts treat the issue of jurisdiction first. If it succeeds the matter abates and the suit is struck out. If on the other hand it fails the appeal is heard and a judgment on the merits of the case delivered”.
PLEADINGS- BINDING EFFECT OF PLEADINGS ON PARTIES
“Parties are bound by their pleadings. That in effect means that if pleadings are to be of any use parties must be held bound by them. See: Balogun v. Adejobi 1995 2 NWLR pt. 376 p.131.
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
“It is trite law that the issue of jurisdiction is constitutional and therefore a matter of law”.
FEDERAL HIGH COURT – EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
“Jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal High Court to the exclusion of any other court in, inter alia, any action or proceeding for declaration or injunction affecting the validity of executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies. See again the decision in the case of University of Abuja V. Ologe (1996) 4 NWLR (Pt.445) 706 at 722”.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT
“It is also trite law and well settled that the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the plaintiff’s claim before it. See the case of Akeem V. University of Ibadan (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt.829) 584.
FEDERAL HIGH COURT – DETERMINATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
“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 proceedings for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decisions by the Federal Government, or any of its agencies”.
ADMINISTRATION/MANAGEMENT – MEANING OF ADMINISTRATION/MANAGEMENT
“Administration is a large term in business and commerce. So too management. Etymologically, the words are synonymous in our context. Administration is the management or direction of the affairs of a business. Management is the art or practice of managing especially a business. Entering into a contract of employment with an employee is a business relationship, which clearly comes within the section 230(1)(q) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree 107 of 1993.”
ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION – EFFECT OF AN ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION
“The question of jurisdiction is trite and well settled in the locus classical case of Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR (Pt. 4) 587. In the absence of jurisdiction, the court will be acting in futility no matter how well a proceeding is conducted. The product of such a proceeding in otherwords is a nullity. The cases of Trustees, P.A.W. V. Trustees A.A.C.C. (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt 790) 424, App V. Ogunsola (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt 761) and Lawal V. Oke (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 88 are all relevant in support.
JURISDICTION – FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION – DUTY OF THE COURT WHEN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS RAISED
“Jurisdiction is a question of law. It is a threshold issue, very fundamental, the livewire of a suit. Where a court does not have jurisdiction over a matter before it and it proceeds to hear and determine the matter, the whole proceedings no matter how well decided would amount to a nullity. This is premised on the position of the law that a judgment given without jurisdiction creates no legal obligations. Such a judgment confers no rights on any of the parties. Jurisdiction is very important, and so it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the court of first instance on appeal and even in the Supreme Court for the first time. See: Adeyemi v. Opeyori 1975 9-10 SC p.31 Usman Dan Fodio University v. Kraus Thompson Organisation Ltd. 2001 15 NWLR pt. 736 p.305. Once raised proceedings should be put on hold and the issue of jurisdiction resolved quickly. In the court of first instance, usually the High court jurisdiction is raised by the entry of conditional appearance, or in the pleading or by an application on Notice”.
JURISDICTION – HOW CAN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION BE RAISED IN APPELLATE COURTS
“In the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court jurisdiction can be raised as a ground of appeal and formulating an issue on it, thereafter incorporating arguments on it in the brief of argument. All courts treat the issue of jurisdiction first. If it succeeds the matter abates and the suit is struck out. If on the other hand it fails the appeal is heard and a judgment on the merits of the case delivered”.
PLEADINGS- BINDING EFFECT OF PLEADINGS ON PARTIES
“Parties are bound by their pleadings. That in effect means that if pleadings are to be of any use parties must be held bound by them. See: Balogun v. Adejobi 1995 2 NWLR pt. 376 p.131.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None|