Samuel Harcourt Olawole Williams V. Attorney-general Of The Federation (1975)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

G. B. A. COKER, J.S.C. 

This case undoubtedly originated from the High Court, Ibadan, where the present respondent, that is the Attorney-General of the Federation, had sued the appellant, as defendant therein, on a writ endorsed as follows:

“1. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for a sum of 644: 16:2d (Six Hundred and Forty Four Pounds, Sixteen Shillings and Two Pence) being the amount granted to the defendant as a loan by the  Federal Government of Nigeria under an Agreement dated 30th October, 1952.”

The case came up before the learned Chief Justice of the Western State on the 18th September 1972, and pleadings were duly ordered and, in pursuance of that order, the plaintiff duly filed a statement of claim. When the case was mentioned before the learned Chief Justice again on the 18th September, 1972, the defendant was not in court and the records show that it was recorded of him that “defendant served but absent”. As he could not be found for purpose of serving the statement of claim on him, the plaintiff moved the court for substituted service on the defendant of the plaintiff’s statement of claim.

On the 26th June, 1973, when the case again was called before the learned Chief Justice, he made an order as prayed on the motion of the plaintiff for substituted service of the plaintiff’s statement of claim on the defendant. There was no other record as to any further proceedings or orders in the High Court, Ibadan, but on the 18th February, 1974, the case was listed before Sowemimo, Ag. J., in the Federal Revenue Court in Lagos.

The plaintiff was represented at this hearing before the Federal Revenue Court and that Court, in adjourning the matter to the 4th March, 1974, observed that there was no indication on the files that the defendant had been served with the plaintiff’s statement of claim. On the 4th March, 1974, the case was called again and as there was nothing to show that the defendant had then been served with the plaintiff’s statement of claim, the case was further adjourned to the 21st May, 1974. Likewise, and for the same reason, the case was adjourned again to the 22nd July, 1974. On that day, the defendant was represented by learned counsel by whom he appeared and on his behalf learned counsel objected to the competence of the Federal Revenue Court to try or continue with the trial of a case which was manifestly begun in the High Court, Ibadan, and that section 7 of the Federal Revenue Court Decree, 1973, had made no provisions concerning the type of transfer postulated by these proceedings. For his own part, learned counsel for the plaintiff resisted the argument against jurisdiction and against the competence of the Federal Revenue Court to hear the case and he argued, inter alia, as follows:

“The objection is misconceived and should be dismissed. The plaintiff or the defendant has not asked for the transfer of this case to this Court. If this case has been wrongfully transferred or commenced in this Court, the only remedy this Court can do is to transfer the case back to the Western State High Court as provided by section 22 (2) of the Federal Revenue Court Decree, 1973. The objection is to be dismissed without merit. ”

In a written ruling, the learned trial judge of the Federal Revenue Court overruled the objection to jurisdiction and ordered the plaintiff to serve the defendant with a copy of the statement of claim and also that the defendant should file his statement of defence thereafter. In the course of that ruling, the learned trial judge referred freely to section 7 and section 8 of the Federal Revenue Court Decree No. 13, of 1973, and then observed thus:

“The present suit is not part-heard at the time the file of the case was sent to the Federal Revenue Court only the statement of claim had been filed, so that the High Court of Justice, Western State, ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In my view, the fact that by virtue of the Federal Revenue Court Decree 1973, which made the High Court of a State cease to have jurisdiction in matters which section 7 of the Federal Revenue Court Decree 1973 will not affect the validity of the original suit filed in that Court and neither will it affect subsequent proceedings being entertained in the Federal  Revenue Court. The case was not transferred to this Court on application of either party, but since the High Court ceased to have Jurisdiction to entertain the suit it was sent to the Federal Revenue Court which has jurisdiction to deal with such cause of action. It is therefore a misconception to contend that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit merely because the suit was originally filed in the High Court of Western State, Ibadan.

The objection is therefore overruled. Defendant to pay costs of N10.”

This appeal is against that decision and ruling and understandably the complaint is that the Federal Revenue Court is incompetent to try the case.

There is nothing on the record of appeal to show how the case itself arrived at the Federal Revenue Court in Lagos since, as we stated above, it was filed in the High Court, Ibadan. There was no order of transfer of the case and all we were told by learned Senior State Counsel appearing for the respondent, is that the case is one of the many files of which were simply bundled together and sent over by the Chief Registrar of the High Court, Ibadan, to the Chief Registrar of the Federal Revenue Court in Lagos.
The High Court, Ibadan, as part of the High Court of Justice of the Western State, was established by the High Court Law, cap. 44, Laws of Western Nigeria, 1959. This legislation contains no powers of transfer thereout to another State or jurisdiction of any case or matter already pending in the court. Sections 31 to 35 of the High Court Law of the Western State, deal with powers of transfer of cases among the courts of the State and in no respect suggest the transfer of a case from the jurisdiction of the State to another State. The Federal Revenue Court was established by the Federal Revenue Court Decree No. 13 of 1973 and section 1 of that Decree provides as follows:

“1(1) There is hereby established a High Court of Justice which shall be styled “The Federal Revenue Court”.
(2) The Federal Revenue Court shall consist of the following:
(a) The President, who shall have overall control and supervision of the Administration Federal Revenue Court and
(b) Such number of Judges (not being less than 4) as the Head of the Federal Military Government may by order prescribe.
(3) The Federal Revenue Court shall be a superior court of record and, save as otherwise provided by law, shall have all the powers of the High Court of Justice of any of the States in the Federation.
(4) The Court shall assume its functions on such dates as may be appointed by an order made by the Head of the Federal Military Government. ”

Section 7 of the Decree deals with and spells out the jurisdiction of the Federal Revenue Court and it is undisputed that the subject-matter of the present Suit falls within the ambit of the jurisdictional provisions of section 7 (1) (a) of the Decree. The next section of the Decree, that is to say section 8, deals with cesser of jurisdiction of other courts with respect to the matters comprehended by section 7. The provisions of section 8 are as follows: