Chief Denman Odivwri Abeke & Ors V. Rowland Imafidon & Ors (1998)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AKINTAN, J.C.A.

The respondents’ as plaintiffs instituted this action by originating summons at the Federal High Court Benin City as suit No. FHC/B/62/M2/96. Their claim before the court was, inter alia, for:

(1) a declaration that by virtue of the right of residence and other economic rights vested in them they are entitled to just, fair and adequate compensation for any interference with and violation of their possessory surface rights over a parcel of land carved out at Ukpe-Sobo; and

(2) an order for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and or privies from use of force, strong arm and or multitude to enter into the said 87 acres of land or thereabout carved out of the Ukpe-Sobo Native Administration Reserves vested in the plaintiffs.

As soon as the defendants were served with the court process, they (defendants) filed a notice of preliminary objection. The three grounds of objection read as follows:

“1. This honourable court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine this case as the subject matter of the action is not within the jurisdiction of this honourable court.

2. The affidavits are in conflict and that being the case, the issues raised cannot be determined by originating summons.
3. The reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are purely academic and no more.”

At the hearing of the case before Abutu J., learned counsel for each of the parties addressed the court on the preliminary objection and the court thereafter delivered a considered ruling in the matter on 28th October. 1996. The court held in its said ruling that it had jurisdiction to entertain the action and that the claim was not purely an academic matter. It however agreed that there were in fact, conflicts in the affidavit evidence filed by the respective panics and the learned trial Judge accordingly ordered that each of the parties should file their pleadings.

The learned trial Judge held, inter alia, as follows in the concluding portion of his said ruling:

“By the provision of section 19 of the Oil Pipelines Act (Cap. 338) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990, any dispute as to whether any compensation is payable under the provisions of the Act, or as to the amount thereof or as to the persons to whom such compensation should he paid shall be determined by a magistrate or a High Court having jurisdiction in the area, depending on the quantum of compensation. By the provision of section 230(1)(g) of the 1979 Constitution, as modified by Decree No.107 of 1993, this court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction in relation to all actions in respect of mines and minerals including oil fields, mining, geological surveys and natural gas. It seems to me therefore that by the combined effect of the provision of section 19 of the Oil Pipelines Act 1990 and section 230(1)(0) of the 1979 Constitution as modified by Decree No.107 of 1993, this court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any action in relation to a dispute as to whom compensation should be paid. By section 6 of the Pipelines Act 1990, compensation is to be paid to owners of the improvements on the land for the improvements … In the result, I hold that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.”

The defendants were dissatisfied with the portion of the ruling of the court by which the court assumed jurisdiction in the matter. They have accordingly appealed against it to this court. Two grounds of appeal were filed against the ruling. The parties filed their respective briefs of argument in this court.

The appellants formulated the following issue as arising for determination in the appeal. “Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the summons of the plaintiffs/respondents can be said to come under section 230(1)(0) of the 1979 Constitution as modified by Decree 107 of 1993.”

The respondents also formulated one similar issue for determination in the respondents’ brief. But since I consider the issue formulated in the appellants’ brief as quite appropriate in resolving the issue in controversy in the appeal. I do not consider it necessary to reproduce the issue formulated in the respondents’ brief.

Reference is made in the appellants’ brief to the affidavits filed in support of the originating summons and the plaintiffs’ claim as formulated. It is then argued that the totality of what the plaintiffs claim is ownership of the 87 acres of land.

That since the summons was not saying that the defendants/appellants are operators of the oil pipelines on the and or that there was compensation money payable by oil pipeline operators on the land which the defendants prevented them from claiming, the plaintiffs’ claim can only be restricted to nothing but to land. It is therefore submitted that the lower court was wrong to assume jurisdiction over the claim under section 230(1)(0) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993.