CORAM

---

U. OMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

U. OMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SUNDAY AKINOLA AKINTAN, (Lead Judgment) JUSTICE ,SUPREME COURT

MITCHEL CHRISTOPHER CHUKWUMA-ENEH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

S.M.A BELGORE.(Presided and Read the Leading Judgment), JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

A.B WALI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

U. OMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

U. OMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

WARRI REFINING & PETROCHEMICAL CO LTD APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent as Plaintiff at the Delta State High Court claimed that he was employed as a security guard by Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and was later posted to the Appellant, a subsidiary of NNPC. On the 28th of October 1992, he was on morning duty when an industrial attachee of the Appellant asked him for the key to the C.I.P unit room 7. He demanded and was shown the attachee’s I.D. card, whereupon he asked the attachee to sign for the key in the Key movement register. After signing, the attachee went into the room 7 and five minutes later the Respondent saw him going towards the admin building without returning the key. Not long after that, other members of staff came asking for the key to room 7, and he told them that somebody has signed for it and when he could not find the attachee who collected the key from him, he reported the matter and the O.C security asked that the door to room 7 be forced open, whereupon they discovered that three table calculators where missing. The Respondent was issued a query on the incident, which he replied. But apparently his explanations were not enough and he was issued a letter of termination of his appointment. In consequence, the Respondent instituted this action against the Appellant seeking declaratory reliefs and damages. The Appellant raised an objection on the jurisdiction of the High Court to try the matter being an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria. The trial Judge dismissed the Appellant’s objection and gave judgment in the Respondent’s favour, hence the appeal from an aggrieved Defendant/Appellant.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the lower court was right in exercising jurisdiction in this case

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST ARISE FROM ONE OR A COMBINATION OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL

---

“True enough, there are too many grounds of appeal for the number of issues formulated, but issues for determination are not formulated to coincide with the numbers of grounds of appeal. What is important is that the issue or issues must arise from one or a combination of the grounds of appeal, and what determines the formulation of an issue is whether the legal consequences of a ground or fact or a combination of those grounds or facts as framed by the appellant, if decided in favour of the appellant will result in a verdict in his favour. See African Petroleum Ltd. v. Owodunni (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.210) 391; United Bank for Africa Limited v. Ibhafidon (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt.318) 90.” –

---

JURISDICTION –IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION

---

“This is because jurisdiction of court is so fundamental that it forms the foundation of adjudication. It is the lifeline of an action, thus, if a court lacks jurisdiction, it automatically lacks the necessary competence to try the case at all. See Achebe v. Nwosu (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 818) 103 & Akeem v. Unibadan (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt.829) 584.” –

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT–DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION OF COURT

---

“…it is now trite law that the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the claim of the plaintiff before a court – see Akeem v. Unibadan (2003) 10 NWLR (Pt.829) 584” –

---

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – CONDITIONS FOR INVOKING THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

---

“In University of Abuja v. Ologe (supra), the court held that the use of the expression “any of its agencies” in section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended is meant to cover all the organs established by law through which the Federal Government carries out its functions. See also the statement of Tobi, J.S.C. in NEPA v. Edeghero (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 79 as follows:-
“In construing section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended, two important matters arise. They are: the parties in the litigation as well as the subject matter of the litigation. The court must consider both. In construing the parties, the court will have no difficulty in identifying the Federal Government but it may have some difficulty in identifying the agency of the Federal Government in certain matters. The case law and the law of agency will certainly be of help in relevant cases…Another important area is the subject matter of the litigation. In my view, 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.” (Italics mine)”
–

---

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

---

“Fortunately, the question of whether a contract of employment with an employee comes within section 230(1)(q) of the 1979 Constitution as amended has been answered in the affirmative by the Supreme Court in NEPA v. Edegbero (supra), wherein the respondents were employees of NEPA whose appointments were terminated following an industrial action, they instituted various suits claiming inter alia for the following declaration –
“A declaration that the purported termination of the plaintiff vide a letter dated 10th August, 1994 from the services of the defendant is irregular, wrongful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever”.
The Supreme Court held in that case, that the aim of paragraphs (q), (r) & (s) of subsection (1) of section 230 of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993 was to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court in matters in which the Federal Government or any of its agencies was a party, and a State High Court would no longer have jurisdiction in such matters notwithstanding the nature of the claim in the action. Tobi, J.C.A. further held as follows at pages 100 – 101:-
“I entirely agree with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiffs claim should be looked at alongside with the provision of section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution …. I do not however agree with him that the claim, which relates to breach of contract of employment, has nothing to do with the administration or management or control of the appellant. 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”. (Italics mine)”
–

---

LACK OF JURISDICTION –EFFECT OF LACK OF JURISDICTION ON A COURT’S PROCEEDING

---

“…it is trite law that if the court has no jurisdiction to hear a case, the proceedings are and remain a nullity however well conducted and brilliantly decided they might otherwise have been as a defect in competence is not intrinsic but extrinsic to adjudication. See Trustees, P.A.W v. Trustees A.A.C.C. (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt.790) 424; APP v. Ogunsola (2002) 5 NWLR (Pt. 761) 484 & Lawal v. Oke (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt.711) 88.” –

---

JUSTICE – JUSTICE IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSON

---

“Justice has not got two weights and measures – one for the Managing Director of a company for instance, and another for the security guard or cleaner in the same company. As Oputa, J.S.C. observed in Kalu v. The State (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt.90) 503,
“it should be one and the same even handed Justice, blind to all social distinctions and disparities in wealth and status and no respecter of person”.
In the circumstances of this case, it is the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the highest law of the land, which guarantees equal constitutional rights to all its citizens that dictated that a State High Court would no longer have jurisdiction to entertain matters in which the Federal Government or any of its agencies was a party, notwithstanding the nature of the claim in the action.” –

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979|Decree No. 107 of 1993|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT