JABIN ONESA OGAGA v. THOMAS E. UMUKORO & ORS.

CORAM

PARTIES

JABIN ONESA OGAGA

APPELLANTS 

THOMAS E. UMUKORO & ORS.

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/1st Respondent was selected as the Ovie of Ewu in line with the custom and tradition of his people. The Delta State Government was expected to appoint him as the Ovie of Ewu, but the Government reasoned otherwise and announced the Appellant as the Ovie of Ewu. The 1st Respondent as Plaintiff, filed an action at the Delta State High Court, for a declaration that the purported approval of 1st Defendant as Ovie of Ewu by the Delta State Government headed by the 2nd Defendant as announced in December 1995, while an inquiry on the same Ovieship set up by the 2nd Defendant has not sat to hear evidence and submit report is against natural justice and the constitutional requirement of fair hearing, a breach of the 1979 constitution of Nigeria and therefore null and void and against the Constitutions of Inquiry Law 1976 applicable in Delta state amongst others. In his amended statement of Defence, the Defendant/Appellant raised a question of jurisdiction contending that the Supremacy and Enforcement of Powers Decree No. 12 of 1994 coupled with Section 32 of the Traditional Rulers and Chief Edict, 1979 of the defunct Bendel State applicable to Delta State ousted the jurisdiction of the trial court. The issue was heard as a preliminary point of Law. The trial High court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case. On appeal by the Plaintiff who was dissatisfied, the court below held that section 32 of the Traditional Rulers and Chief’s Edict, 1979 was unconstitutional; having regard to the 1979, Constitution and that Decree 12 of 1994 did not oust the jurisdiction of the trial High court. The Court of Appeal then remitted the case to the High Court for trial on the merits. It is against the appeal that the Defendant/Appellant has appealed to this Court.

HELD

Appeal Dismissed

ISSUES

Whether by the combined effect of the provisions of Section 19 (1) of the Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict 1979 applicable to Delta state and section 1 (2)(b) (i) of Supremacy and Enforcement of powers) Decree No.12 of 1994, the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the High court sitting at Otu-Jenemi has jurisdiction to hear and determine the substantive suit by remitting same to the said court for hearing on the merit.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION OF STATE HIGH COURT – STATUS OF STATE LAWS WHICH PURPORTS TO OUST THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURT

“I refer to Military Governor of Ondo State v. Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.82) 280. I would like to cite and quote Igu JSC in Benin Rubber Producers Ltd. v. Ojo (1997) 9 NWLR (pt.521) 388. In that case the Appellant’s counsel had contended that the respondent’s failure to comply with or exhaust all the remedies prescribed by section 51 (1) (c) of the Cooperative Societies Law cap.45 Laws of Bendel state of Nigeria 1976 before filing his action against the appellant and its servant robbed the court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This court considered the combined effect of sections 6 (6) (b), 236 and 274 of the 1979 Constitution alongside the said Section 51 (1) (c) of the Co-operative Societies Law and held that the court’s jurisdiction was not ousted. Illuminating the position, Iguh JSC in the lead judgment at page 405 stated as follows:- “The combined effect of these sections of the 1979 constitution is, subject to the other provisions of the said Constitution, to confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High court of a State and all existing Laws and/or any provision in a state Laws which are not in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution or tend to derogate from the powers of such courts shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void. State Laws which purports to oust the jurisdiction of the state High court is void as being inconsistent with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979. See Bronik Motors Ltd. & Anor v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 6 SC. 158, Military Governor of Ondo State and Anor v. Victor Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 82) 280. In my view therefore, the provisions of Section 51 (1) (a), 51 (1) (b) and 51 (6) inconsistent with of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979. See Bronik Motors Ltd. & Anor v. Wema Bank (1983) 6 SC 158, Military Governor of Ondo State and Anor. v. Victor Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (pt.82) 280.”

JURISDICTION OF STATE HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE STATE HIGH COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

“Section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution conferred unlimited jurisdiction on State High Courts. The combined effect of the provisions of Section 6(6) (b), 236(1) and 274 of the 1979 Constitution which were left intact, imbued the State High Court with unlimited jurisdiction. Any state law that is not in conformity is to the extent of the inconsistency void. See: Military Governor of Ondo State and Anr. v. Adewunmi (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 82) 280; Benin Rubber Producers Ltd. V. Ojo (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt.521) 388; Bronik Motors Ltd. and Anr. V. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 6 SC 158.”

CONSTITUTION – SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION

“In the Supremacy and Hierarchy of laws the Constitution is superior to an Edict. It is the provision of 1979 or 1999 Constitution Section 1 (3) that: – “If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution shall prevail and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency void”. Section 32 of the Chiefs Edict 1979 is nullified by this section of the Constitution for being unconstitutional.”

INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION – DUTY ON COURTS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES

“The courts are vested with the power to interpret the Constitution and Statutes. They are in fact custodians of the Constitution. In the interpretation and construction of the Constitution or Statutes the courts are enjoined to act in accordance with the intendment of the law makers, and to lean against any interpretation that will provide absurdity. A statute must not be given a construction that will defeat its purpose. The words of the statutes here are clear and unambiguous; they ought to be accorded their simple grammatical meaning- Adewunmi vs. A. G. Ekiti state (2000) 2 NWLR pt.751 pg. 474. Fawehinmi vs. IGP (2000) 7 NWLR pt. 665, Pg.481 Awolowo vs. Shagari (1979) 6-9 SC 51 It is settled that courts guard their jurisdiction jealously and any statute ousting the jurisdiction of a superior court has to be strictly construed. The provisions of the Constitution on the functions of the court in Section 236 (1) of the 1979 Constitution in pari material with Section 272 (1) of the 1999 Constitution must be strictly construed. Katto vs. C. B. N (1991) 1 NWLR pt.214, pg. 126 Wilson vs. A. G. Bendel State (1985) 1 NWLR Pt.4, pg 572.”

JURISDICTION OF A STATE HIGH COURT – STATUS OF A STATE LAW, WHICH OUSTS THE JURISDICTION OF A STATE HIGH COURT

“Any law, particularly the law of a state in conflict with section 236(1) of the 1979 constitution becomes null and void. See Famubo v. Adekunle 1988 2NWLR pt.79 p.723. My lords, Section 6(6) (b) and 236 (1) of the 1979 constitution confers unlimited jurisdiction on State High Courts on all existing Laws. Consequently, any State Law or its provisions which are in conflict with the provision of the constitution shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void. Where a State Law/Legislation ousts or purports to oust the jurisdiction of a State High Court such legislation is void for being in consistent with the constitution. See M.G. of Ondo State & Anor v. Adewunmi 1988 3 NWLR pt.82 p.280. It follows naturally that section 32 of the traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict 1979 of the former Bendel State, now Delta State, a State Legislation is void since it ousts the jurisdiction of the State High Court. It is contrary to the clear provisions of the 1979 Constitution. Decree No 12 of 1994 became effective from November 1993. It has no retrospective effect and so has no effect on the State Legislation of 1979. (i.e. the Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict of 1979). The provisions of Decree No. 12 of 1994 do not oust the jurisdiction of the State High Court.”

CASES CITED

Not Available

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979|Cooperative Societies Law cap.45 Laws of Bendel state of Nigeria 1976|Traditional Rulers and Chiefs Edict 1979|

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT