May 21, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2011) Legalpedia (CA) 21688 In the Court of Appeal HOLDEN AT PORT HARCOURT Wed Mar 30, 2011 Suit Number: CA/PH/8M/2006 CORAM PARTIES MR. INNOCENT KAFOR […]
CORAM
PARTIES
MR. INNOCENT KAFOR & ORS. APPELLANTS
MR. IBINABO DON PEDRO RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent as Plaintiff at the Rivers State High Court, instituted a suit against the Appellants as Defendants. The Respondent claimed against the Appellants jointly and severally for; “a declaration that the Plaintiff is the proper person entitled to the statutory right of occupancy and a fortiori to the use, occupation and enjoyment of all that property lying situate at Block 7B Road 22 Federal Housing Estate Woji in Obio/Akpor Local Government Area, Rivers State; a declaration that the purported allocation of the said Block 78 Road 22 Federal Housing Estate Woji Obio/Akpor Local Government Area Rivers State to the 1st Defendant by letter Reference No. CWH/RV/WJ/279 dated 20/1/98 and signed by the 2nd Defendant at the instance of the 3rd Defendant is illegal, void and of no effect whatsoever; N1, 000,000.00k damages for trespass; and perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants jointly and each of them severally from further trespass or interference with the Plaintiff s quiet possession of the said property.” Before filing his statement of defence, the 1st Defendant took out a preliminary objection urging the court to strike out the Plaintiff’s suit for want of jurisdiction. It was argued for the 1st Defendant that since the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are agents of the Federal Government and the Plaintiffs’ claim is against the acts done by these agents on behalf of the Federal Government, the lower court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned counsel to the Plaintiff in reply argued otherwise. In a considered ruling, the court dismissed the preliminary objection and held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Defendants have appealed against same.
HELD
Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
Whether the lower State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit on appeal, in view of the fact that some of the Defendants are agencies/agents of the federal Government and the issues before that court border on management or administrative decisions of the federal Government?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COURT, JURISDICTION, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 251(1)(R) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999
“In Ali V. CBN (1997) 4 NWLR (PT. 498) 192 this court while interpreting Section 230 (1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree No.107 which is pari materia to Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 constitution this court at page 202 of the law report restated thus:-
“This section in its ordinary meaning is intended to give exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court in matter specified therein. My learned brother Orah J.C.A. had the same view and put it at p. 722 on the case of university of Abuja v. Prof. K.O. Otoge (supra) thus:-
‘In the instant case, in which section 230(1) (q) (r) and (s) confers the exercise of jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes or matters arising from:-
(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies — the provision of section 230(1) – (r) – which clearly confers jurisdiction exclusively on the Federal High Court in instance such as this is not difficult to see. The issue is not one of interpretation statutory provisions. The provisions are clear and unambiguous and do not admit of what counsel or Judge thinks otherwise they are.’
In that case the respondent had sued the appellant in the Federal High Court Jos challenging his suspension from office, and the appellant had argued a preliminary objection that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction because the University of Abuja was an agent of the Federal Government and not an agency. The Federal High Court over-ruled the preliminary objection of the appellant and on appeal, the Court of Appeal, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the ruling of the Federal High Court.”
COURT, JURISDICTION, LAND LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT CAN EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN LAND DISPUTES INVOLVING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES
“My understanding of the foregoing decision of the apex court is that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court pursuant to Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution depends squarely on the parties as well as the subject matter of the action being litigated upon. Once it is shown that the defendant before the trial court is either the Federal Government or any of its agencies and the plaintiff therein seeks declaration and injunction in relation to an executive or administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies, then the Federal High Court would enjoy exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Otherwise and being in respect of land not having been conferred with jurisdiction under S.39(1) and S.41 of the Land Use Act, the Federal High Court would lack the jurisdiction over such matters.”
STARE DECISIS, COURT, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS – CONSEQUENCE OF A COURT’S FAILURE TO OBSERVE THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
“By the doctrine of stare decisis this court is bound by its previous decisions as well. The lower court that appears to have departed from this court’s decisions in respect of the same law and facts must be reminded the words of Uwais CJN as he then was in Atolagbe And Another V. Awuri and 2 Others (1997) 9 NWLR (PT.522) 536 thus:
‘With regard to the Learned Trial Judge’s refusal to follow the decision of the Court of Appeal in Gambari’s case (supra) in preference to the decision of this court in Bakare’s case (supra) I am of the view that the learned trial Judge’s insubordination calls for deprecation.’”
AGENCY
AGENCY RELATIONSHIP – WHEN DOES AN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP ARISE?
“In Bamgboye V. University Of Ilorin (1991) 8 NWLR (PT. 207) 1 at 6 cited with approval in University Of Abuja V. Ologe (supra) it has been held thus:
‘The relationship of agency arises whenever one person, called the agent, has authority to act on behalf of another, called the principal and consents to act. Authority may also be implied from the subsequent assent of the principal. It is therefore trite law that agency arises manly from a contract or agreement between parties express or implied.’”
WORDS AND PHRASES
AGENCY – MEANING OF AGENCY
“It must be added that agency is a relationship in which the agent has authority and the capacity to create legal relations between the principal and third parties see Niger Progress Ltd. V. North East Line Corporation (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. 107) 68.”
COURT, JURISDICTION, LAND LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT MAY EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF ACTIONS RELATING TO LAND WHERE THERE IS A CHALLENGE TO THE VALIDITY OF AN EXECUTIVE DECISION OR ACTION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
“Again, learned Appellants, counsel is right that notwithstanding the State High court’s powers under the Land Use Act to hear and determine disputes arising from interest in, and pertaining the management and control of State land, the jurisdiction the federal High court enjoys by virtue of Section 251(1) r is total. The section provides:
“251-(1) 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 causes and matters-
(r) Any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
Provided that nothing in the provision (s) of paragraph(s) (p), (q) and (r) of this subsection shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.”
Under the foregoing, it does not matter that the executive decision or action which validity is being challenged and in respect of which the plaintiff seeks the declaration and/or injunction in the action relates to land or whatever. Once there is such an executive decision and/or action by the Federal Government or its agencies and a declaration or injunction is sought in respect of the validity of the decision or action that is being so questioned, the Federal High court to the exclusion of the State High court has the jurisdiction over the action. Neither the constitution itself nor any other statute can detract from the jurisdiction section 251 (1) (r) confers on the federal High Court. In any event, the jurisdiction of the lower court, a State High Court, has by virtue of S.272 of the Constitution been subjected to the section 251 of the Constitution. The consequence is that the federal High Court in respect of matters provided for under S. 251(1) (r) enjoys an overriding jurisdiction to the exclusion of the lower court.”
COURT, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – ATTITUDE OF COURT WHEN AN ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS RAISED
“In Oloba V. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 84) 508, the Supreme Court has held thus:-
“There is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice to the law, to the court and the parties. So to do … Once an issue of jurisdiction is raised it should be examined in all its ramifications. It should not be compartmentalized and subjected to piecemeal examination and treatment. The very many facts of jurisdiction should come under the search light and pronounced upon.’.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999|Constitution as amended by Decree No.1071979|