Attorney-general Of Rivers State V. Attorney-general Of Bayelsa State & Anor (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.S.C

The Plaintiff, the Honourable Attorney-General of Rivers State (hereinafter, where necessary, abbreviated as the “R.S”) commenced an action on behalf of the Government of his State, pursuant to the original jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Section 232 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, against the Attorney-General of Bayelsa State (hereinafter abbreviated as “B.S”) and the Attorney-General of the Federation, as defendants respectively.

Pleadings were settled, duly filed, exchanged and subsequently amended. In Plaintiff’s amended Statement of Claim in paragraph 77 thereof the reliefs sought against the defendants are as follows:

“1. DECLARATION that the purported boundary between the Plaintiff State and the 1st Defendant State as shown in the 11th Edition of the Administrative Map of Nigeria does not represent the correct boundary between the Plaintiff State and the 1st Defendant State.

2. DECLARATION that the correct boundary between the Plaintiff state and the 1st Defendant is River Santa Barbara.
3. DECLARATION that the 1st Defendant’s claim to Soku Oil fields in the Plaintiff’s territorial jurisdiction is false, wrongful, illegal, unconstitutional, vexatious, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. DECLARATION that the Soku Oil Fields/Oil Wells are situated within the territorial boundaries of Rivers State of Nigeria.
5. DECLARATION that the Plaintiff State is entitled to all the revenue that has accrued and is accruing to the Federation Account from the said Soku Oil Fields/Oil Wells from July, 2005, by reason of the derivation principle stipulated in Section 162(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.
6. DECLARATION that all accrued revenues from the Soku Oil Fields/Oil Wells however arisen and either being kept in the account known as “Rivers State/Bayelsa States Excrow account” or in any other account be released forthwith to the Plaintiff, with all accrued interest thereon.
7. AN ORDER against the 2nd Defendant for account of revenue that has accrued to the federation account from “Soku” Oil field/wells on the basis of the derivative principle, from July, 2005 which Rivers State should have received but for the wrongful payment of same by the 2nd Defendant to the 1st Defendant.
8. AN ORDER for payment by the 2nd Defendant to the Plaintiff of any sums due from the Federation Account to Rivers State upon the taking of such account.
9. OR IN THE EVENT THAT all sums found due upon the taking of such account have been paid to the 1st Defendant, then AN ORDER directing the 1st Defendant to pay and/or refund to the Plaintiff all the revenue wrongly paid to the 1st Defendant from the Federation Account in respect of the Soku Oil Fields/Wells from July, 2005.
10. FURTHER to relief (i) AN ORDER directing the 2nd defendant to cause to be deducted from the statutory allocation of the 1st defendant and paid over to the plaintiff any sums due from the Federation Account to the plaintiff state upon the taking of such account.
11. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Federal Government of Nigeria by itself, its servants agents or privies and all its agencies or departments and functionaries howsoever called or described from allotting or continuing to allot the Soku Oil Fields/Oil Wells or all revenues derived from the Oil Fields/Oil Wells to the 1st Defendant.
12. AN ORDER directing the Federal Government of Nigeria by itself its servants, agent’s or privies and all its agencies or departments and functionaries howsoever called or described to continue to pay to Plaintiff State all revenues and/or proceeds accrued and/or derived from Soku Oil Fields/Oil Wells.”

The Plaintiff is relying on the testimony of SIX witnesses and TWENTY-NINE Exhibits and documents in support of his case.

The 1st Defendant on his part filed amended Statement of Defence on 29/08/2011 and is relying on the testimony of Two Witnesses and SIXTEEN Exhibits. The 2nd Defendant filed his Statement of Defence on 16/05/2011 and is relying on the testimony of FOUR Witnesses and SIXTEEN Exhibits.

The plaintiff in further joining issues with the 1st Defendant filed a Reply on 04/05/2012. He further filed additional statement on oath of the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th Plaintiffs’ witnesses.

These processes particularly the witness statements together with the Exhibits and annextures were duly adopted by the parties.

Therefore, from the Plaintiff’s end, the copious affidavit evidence and documents they predicated their claim and relied upon on 30/05/2012 when the case was heard are as follows:

(a) Amended Writ of Summons and Amended Statement of claim dated and filed on 11/01/2011

(b) Plaintiff’s reply to the 1st Defendant’s Amended Statement of Defence dated and filed on 17/05/2012.

(c) Plaintiff’s 1st Witness Statement on Oath of Ngozi Iroegbu containing 83 paragraphs with Exhibits ‘A-S’.

(d) Plaintiff’s 2nd Witness Statement on Oath of Gaius Assor filed on 17/01/2011 of 85 paragraphs.

(e) Plaintiff’s 2nd Witness Additional Statement on Oath of Gaius Assor of 49 paragraphs filed on 04/05/2012 with Exhibits “GA1 – 13”.