THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED V GOVERNMENT OF BAYELSA STATE OF NIGERIA & ANOR

Legalpedia Citation: (2023-03) Legalpedia 96444 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Mar 24, 2023

Suit Number: SC.357/2018

CORAM

OLUKAYODE ARIWOOLA JSC

JOHN INYANG OKORO JSC

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE JSC

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR JSC

EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JSC

PARTIES

THE SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF NIGERIA LIMITED

APPELLANTS

GOVERNMENT OF BAYELSA STATE OF NIGERIA
BAYELSA STATE PHYSICAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ENVIROMENTAL LAW, JUDGMENT, MINING, OIL AND GAS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

At the Bayelsa State High Court (the trial court), the respondents instituted an action exparte to evict the Respondent and all occupants of the Gbaran Ubie Integrated Oil & Gas Project at Gbarantoru and all its associated facilities in Bayelsa State from the Development to enable the Applicants conduct environmental, health, technical integrity and safety checks of the Gbaran Ubie Integrated Oil & Gas Project and all its associated facilities for overriding public interest. The claim was that the Appellant has deliberately failed, neglected and refused to comply with the terms of all the notices for compliance and enforcement served on them in accordance with the order and directives issued to it.

The trial court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellant went to the lower court and raised a preliminary objection as to whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The lower court in its judgment upheld the preliminary objection and struck out the suit before the trial court for being incompetent but equally struck out the appeal saying that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter because the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

The Appellant was dissatisfied by the decision hence the instant appeal

HELD

Appeal allowed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the lower Court was right to strike out the Appellant’s (successful) appeal for lack of jurisdiction?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION – THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION IN ADJUDICATION

It is elementary law that jurisdiction is a threshold issue as a Court must have jurisdiction before it can enter into a cause or matter at all, not to mention before it can make a binding order on it. It is also settled that where the condition of “want of competence” exists, it is not a mere irregularity, which can be cured by consideration of substantial justice, “but a fundamental defect fatal to the adjudication” – see Odofin V. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350. – Per A. A. Augie, JSC

APPELLATE COURTS – PRIMARY ROLE OF APPELLATE COURTS

The Court below clearly lost sight of the primary role of an appellate Court, which is to superintend, review and correct any errors made by the trial Court, in the appeal before it.

In its determination of an appeal, the appellate Court may allow or dismiss an appeal, and may make necessary consequential orders – see Dairo V. UBN Plc (2007) 16 NWLR (1059) 99, wherein this Court stated:

“Where the appeal Court upholds or affirms the decision of the trial Court or a Court lower to it, it means that the appeal before it is dismissed. Where it allows the appeal, it means that the decision of the trial Court or the Court lower to it is set aside.” – Per A. A. Augie, JSC

APPEAL, COURTS, NOTABLE PRONOUNCEMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

APPELLATE COURTS – WHETHER APPELLATE COURTS LOSE JURISDICTION FOR DEFAULT OF PROCEDURAL OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER COURT – CONDUCT OF THE APPELLATE COURT

…an appellate Court vested with statutory jurisdiction to entertain appeals from a lower Court does not lose same for default of procedural or other jurisdiction of the said lower Court. An appellate Court will only lack jurisdiction to entertain merits of an appeal wherein the lower Court ab initio lacked statutory jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and even then, in such instances, the appellate Court remains competent to pronounce on the absence of the jurisdiction of the lower Court, it will however be precluded from making decisions on the merits of the case. But where, as in this case, lack of jurisdiction is procedural, the Court below had jurisdiction to nullify the proceedings without declaring itself unhelpful.

To illustrate what I am saying, this Court faced a similar situation in the case of Ezim V. Menakaya (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1623) 113, where the trial Court found for the Appellant, but he lost at the Court of Appeal, and in this Court, he argued inter alia that he was not duly served with the Court processes relating to the proceedings at the Court of Appeal. In allowing the appeal, this Court found that there was no record or evidence that the Notice of Appeal to Court of Appeal was served on the Appellant, and so, its judgment was delivered without jurisdiction. In the lead judgment of this Court, Ogunbiyi, JSC, concluded as follows: “The judgment of the lower Court – – is a nullity and/or delivered without jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that the Appellant was calculatedly denied his fundamental and inalienable right to fair hearing. In the absence of fair hearing, justice could not possibly have been done at the lower Court – – In the result, the justice of this case would only be met if the case is sent back to the Court of Appeal for the proper hearing of the appeal after parties are duly served with all the processes. The appeal is allowed, while the judgment of the lower Court is set aside.” In that case, Ezim V. Menakaya (supra), and on similar facts, this Court allowed the appeal before it set aside the judgment of the lower Court. In this case, it is clear, therefore, that the Court below turned the law on its head when it concluded that because the trial Court’s decision “was mired in a nullity, it was/is barren to give birth to a viable appeal”, the said suit and the appeal itself “are rendered incompetent”. It struck out the Suit first before striking out the Appeal for want of competence. Obviously, the proper order it had to make in the circumstances, was to allow the appeal and set aside the proceedings of the trial Court. Its decision to declare the appeal incompetent and strike out same was reached from a place of misconception of the law and it cannot stand. – Per A. A. Augie, JSC

APPELLATE COURTS – WHETHER APPELLATE COURTS LOSE JURISDICTION FOR DEFAULT OF PROCEDURAL OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF THE LOWER COURT – CONDUCT OF THE APPELLATE COURT

In this case, it is clear, therefore, that the Court below turned the law on its head when it concluded that because the trial Court’s decision “was mired in a nullity, it was/is barren to give birth to a viable appeal”, the said suit and the appeal itself “are rendered incompetent”. It struck out the Suit first before striking out the Appeal for want of competence. Obviously, the proper order it had to make in the circumstances, was to allow the appeal and set aside the proceedings of the trial Court. Its decision to declare the appeal incompetent and strike out same was reached from a place of misconception of the law and it cannot stand. – Per A. A. Augie, JSC

APPELLATE COURT – DUTY OF THE APPELLATE COURT WHEN A SUIT WAS DECIDED WITHOUT JURISDICTION

The position of the law is abundantly clear that once it is apparent that a suit was decided without jurisdiction, the only procedural duty of the appellate Court is to strike out the case as the entire proceedings and judgment of the trial Court is a nullity. The matter ends there without more as one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. See Ajayi Vs. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt.1310) 137, U. A. C vs. Macfoy (1961) 3 WLR 1405.

The procedure employed by the Court below which has given rise to this appeal is inordinate where the Court in exercising its superintendency role rightly struck out the case decided at the Court of first instance without jurisdiction and then proceeded to also strike out the appeal itself on the ground that the lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court has robbed it of the jurisdiction to superintend. That is a wrong procedure. The Court below has an appellate jurisdiction because it has the right to review decisions of the trial Court and make corrections thereto. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC