Attorney-general Of Plateau State V. Attorney-general Of Nasarawa State (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGUNTADE, J.S.C.

Two suits, both initiated in this court by the Attorney-General of Plateau State against the Attorney-General of Nasarawa State pursuant to the original jurisdiction of this court under section 232 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, were consolidated for hearing. In the first suit SC/255/2000, the plaintiff claims the following reliefs:

“(a) A declaration that by the guidelines on the sharing of assets and liabilities between the plaintiff and the defendant, projects located in each State automatically vest in such State.

(b) A declaration that liabilities for such projects vest in such State.

(c) A declaration that the judgment in suit No. PID/J/435/94 delivered in 1994 against the then Plateau State Government for projects executed in areas that are now in Nasarawa State automatically vested on the defendant after its creation in 1996.

(d) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to be refunded the N4 million paid to the judgment creditor from the defendant.”

Under the caption ‘Issues for Determination’ the documents annexed to plaintiff’s originating summons as exhibits, which the plaintiff wishes this court to interpret to sustain its claim were stated to be the following:

“(a) The minutes of meeting held with the Head of State Commander-in-Chief on the implementation of shared assets between the plaintiff and the defendant especially on page 43 paragraph 8 of exhibit ‘A’ … ‘He said further that external loans taken jointly to execute projects in which both States benefited were to be shared accordingly while those taken to execute projects solely for projects located in either Plateau or Nasarawa were left for such State to inherit’.

(b) The summary of execution of Government white paper on assets and liabilities sharing between Plateau and Nasarawa States especially paragraph FF of exhibit B “All assets and liabilities on projects confined to specific locations to be inherited by the State in which they are located.’

(c) The terms of reference on the sharing of assets between Nasarawa and Plateau States and addressed to the Military Administrator of Plateau State especially paragraph V of exhibit C ‘Ensure that all projects and their liabilities are taken over by the Government of the States where those projects are located.

(d) A letter written by the Military Administrator of Nasarawa State to the Chief of General Staff especially paragraph 11 of exhibit D ‘By the provision of the Federal Government white paper on assets sharing between Plateau and Nasarawa States. Karu Housing project is shared to Nasarawa State. This is predicated on the reasoning that projects located in areas comprised of the newly created States are to remain where they were prior to State creation.”

In the second suit, SC.269/2002, the plaintiff claims the following reliefs:

“(1) A declaration that by the guidelines on the sharing of assets and liabilities between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant projects located in each State automatically vest in such State.

(2) A declaration that liabilities for such projects automatically vest in such State.