May 19, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2011-04) Legalpedia (SC) 11811 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria Fri Apr 15, 2011 Suit Number: SC. 233/2003 CORAM ENEH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT EMANUEL OBIOMA […]
CORAM
ENEH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUKHTAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ENEH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ABUBAKAR BASHIR WALI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUKHTAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ENEH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
EMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUGBU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUKHTAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUKHTAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION APPELLANTS
CLIFCO NIGERIA LIMITED
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant/cross respondent and the respondent/cross appellant entered into a contract in which it was agreed that the appellant would sell to the respondent four Vaccum Gas Oil (VGO) at the rate of one cargo per month. The appellant and respondent novated the agreement sometime in 1999 and a new agreement emerged in which it was agreed that the appellant would supply to the respondent Low Pour Fuel Oil (LPFO) at the same rate. The appellant faulted and the parties went to arbitration. The arbitration panel held in favour of the respondent and the appellant sought an order of the court setting aside the arbitral award. ?
HELD
The court held that the appellant did not raise the issue of jurisdiction of the arbitral panel to hear the dispute and that the clear interpretation of the appellants conduct is that it submitted to jurisdiction and cannot raise the issue of jurisdiction on appeal and that the court of appeal was right to sustain the alternative claim in part and that the cross appeal failed as special damage was not strictly proved.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the lower court was right to hold that the arbitration panel had jurisdiction to entertain this matter notwithstanding the concurrent finding of fact that the old contract agreement which contained the arbitration clause had been novated into a new contract which had no similar clause?
2. Whether the lower court was not wrong when it failed to hold that the arbitrators misconducted themselves by taking evidence from the respondents without affording the appellant same opportunity?
3. Whether or not the lower court was right in upholding the alternative award, of the arbitrators having regard to the circumstances of this case. Whether or not the cost awarded by the lower court was justified?
4.Whether or not the lower court was not in error in considering issues which were not placed before the court?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ON WHAT THE COURT SHOULD DO WHERE THE MAIN CLAIM FAILS
It is well settled that when the main claim fails, the court should consider the alternative claim and if found to be proved, justified or sustainable, grant it.- Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.
ON EFFECT OF A COURT HEARING A MATTER WHERE IT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO
Jurisdiction is the heart and soul of a case. No matter how well a case is conducted and decided if the court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate, the whole exercise would amount to a nullity- Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.
ON JURISDICTION AND WHEN IT CAN BE RAISED
Jurisdiction is a threshold matter, a question of law. The position of the Law is that the issue of jurisdiction 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- Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.
ON AWARD OF SPECIAL DAMAGES
Evidence ought to be led before an award for special damages is granted. To succeed in a claim for special damages it must be claimed specially and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. Special damages are exceptional in character and so there is no room for inference by the court. It is unreasonable to consider a claim for special damages reasonable in the absence of proof. A claim for special damages succeeds on compelling evidence to justify it and not on the sums claimed appearing reasonable to the court- Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.
ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IN ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS
My Lords, the interpretation of the above and the position of the issue of jurisdiction in arbitral proceedings is that jurisdiction to hear and determine a dispute is raised before the arbitral panel within the time stipulated in the arbitral Act. It can only be raised after the stipulated period if the arbitral panel finds reasons for the delay justified. An appeal on the issue of jurisdiction can be entertained by the High Court provided there was no submission to jurisdiction. A party who did not raise the issue of jurisdiction before the arbitral panel is foreclosed from raising it for the first time in the High Court. The reason being that the foundation of jurisdiction in an arbitration is submission- Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.
ON SPECIAL DAMAGES
Special damages are never inferred from the nature of the act complained of. They do not follow in the ordinary course as is the case with General damages. They are exceptional and so must be claimed specially and proved strictly- Rhodes-Vivour, JSC.
CASES CITED
Oyeneye v Odugbesan 1972 4SC p244 Nzom v Jinadu 1987 1NWLR pt 51 P 537 Okulate v Awosanya 2002 2NWLR Pt 645 p530 Nkwocha v Gov of Anambra State 1984 1SCNLR p634 Usman Dan Fodio University v. Kraus Thompson Organisation Ltd 2001 15 NWLR pt.736 p. 305Madukolu v. Nkemdilim 1962 1 ANLR p.587 Bromk Motors Ltd and Anor v. Wema Bank Ltd 1983 1SCNLR P.296 Obeta v. Okpe 1996 9NWLR pt. 473 p. 401 Ogundoyin v. Adeyemi 20011 13 NWLR pt.730 p. 403 Saleh v. Monguno 2003 1 NWLR pt. 801 p.221Masheshe General Merchants Ltd v. Nig Steel Products Ltd 1987 INWLR pt.55 p. 111.Taylor Woodrow (Nig) Ltd v. S.E. GMBH 993 4 NWLR pt. 286 p.127 N.B.C.I. v. Alfijir (Mining) Nig Ltd 1994 14 NWLR pt. 638 p. 176 UBA Ltd v. Stalbau Gmbh 1989 3 NWLR pt.110 p.374Anyaegbunam v. Osaka 1993 5NWLR pt.294 p.449 Obayagbona v. Obazee 1972 5SC p.247 University of Lagos v. Aigoro 1985 1NWLR pt.1 p. 143 Abbas v. Solomon 2001 15 NWLR pt.735 p. 144. Akintola v. Solano 1986 2 NWLR pt.24 p. 598 Nwadike v Ibekwe 1987 pt.67 p. 718 Oguma v. IBWA 1988 1 NWLR pt.73 p. 658 Agunwa v. Owukwe 1962 2SCNLR p. 275 Odinaka v. Moghalu 1992 4 NWLR pt.233 p.1 Imana v. Robinson 1979 3 -4 SC p.1 Oshinjinrin v. Elias 1970 1ANLR p.153 Din v. African Newspapers of Nig Ltd 1990 21 NSCC pt.2 p.313 Cardoso v. Daniel 1986 2 NWLR pt.20 p.1 Incar v. Benson 1975 3SC p.117 Odulaja v. Haddad 1973 11SC p. 351 ?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1990
2. 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
3. Court of Appeal rules