Ansaldo Nigeria Limited V. National Provident Fund Management Board (1991)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OLATAWURA, J.S.C. 

This appeal turns on the interpretation of the meaning of revenue within the con of the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court under the Federal High Court Act, 1973 (now Cap 134 of the Laws of the Federation, 1990). It also raises the issue whether the contributions made and payable under the National Provident Fund Act of 1961 (now Cap. 273 of the Laws of the Federation,1990) can qualify as revenue of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

The appellant was charged in the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court of Nigeria with three counts which read as follows:

COUNT I

THAT YOU, ANSALDO NIGERIA LIMITED of No. 170, Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, in the Lagos Judicial Division being an employer within the meaning of National Provident Fund Act 1961, failed to register all your workers by your Provident Fund form NPF 13 cards in respect of each of your worker are required by Section 8(1) of the National Provident Fund (General) Regulations 1961, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 35(1)(f) of the National Provider Fund Act 1961.COUNT II

THAT YOU, ANSALDO NIGERIA LIMITED of No. 17 Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, in the Lagos Judicial Division, being a Employer within the meaning of National Provident Fund Act 1961, failed to pay contributions prescribed for workers an Employers, as stipulated in the third schedule to the Act, for the period between April 1983 and October 1983 contrary to Section 13(1) of the National Provident Fund Act 1961 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 35(1)( d) of the National Provident Fund Act, 1961.COUNT III:

THAT YOU, ANSALDO NIGERIA LIMITED of No. 10, Awolowo Road, Ikoyi, in Lagos Judicial Division, being a employer within the meaning of National Provident Fund Act 1961 failed to pay contributions on behalf of your casual worker contrary to Section 13 of the National Provident Fund (Genera) Regulations 1961 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 35(1)(f) of the National Provident Fund Act 1961.”

On a motion on notice the Appellant raised an objection to the charge and prayed the Federal High Court to strike out the charge on the ground that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction “since the charge herein does not relate to criminal proceedings pertaining to the revenue of the Federal Government.” The objection was raised before Belgore J. (as he then was), the learned trial Judge overruled the objection.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the ruling. In unanimous decision of that Court, Coram; Ademola, Nnaemeka-Agu and Kolawole, JJ.C.A., the appeal was dismissed. In the lead judgment of Nnaemeka-Agu J.C.A. (as he then was), the learned justice of that Court of Appeal said:

“No serious issue was really raised in this appeal as to whether or not the Federal High Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the charge once it is found that the contribution is part of the revenue of the Federal Government and that the respondent is an organ of the Federal Government. This is because once these are decided positively it will follow that the court will have jurisdiction under Section 7(2) of the Federal High Court Act, 1973, to entertain any criminal causes or matters arising out of or connected with the matters over which it has civil jurisdiction.”

An appeal to this court against that judgment is based on one ground of appeal. This ground reads thus:

“The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to hear the charge brought against the Appellant by the respondent.

Particulars of Error

(a) The criminal jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal High Court by the Federal High Court Act, 1973 extends only to criminal causes and matters arising out of or connected with matters in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred on that court in civil matters.