Christian. C. Nkwonta V. Nigerian Gas Coy Ltd & Ors (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ISTIFANUS THOMAS, J.C.A (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an interlocutory appeal against the ruling of R.O. Nwodo (J) sitting at Federal High Court Port Harcourt delivered on 17th May, 2006, striking out the plaintiff now appellant’s suit on the basis that it had no jurisdiction. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the appellant filed on 2nd June, 2006 a Notice of Appeal containing a single ground of appeals that reads as follows.

“1.The learned trial judge erred in law by striking out the Appellant’s suit on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of the suit’ Particular of error

(i) The subject matter of the suit falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the court being a Federal High Court.

(ii) The Court being a Federal High Court has been invested by law viz Section 251 (1) (n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and, Section 7 (1) (n) of the Federal High Court Act (chapter F. 12) with the exclusive jurisdiction to try any civil causes or matters relating to or connected with mines and mineral (including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas)”

(iii)The acts of trespass complained of by the appellant in the said suit were not acts of trespass simpliciter but were acts of trespass connected with or related to or arising from “mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas)”

From the above ground of appeal, the appellant has raised a single issue that reads as follows:-

“Whether having regard to the law and the pleaded facts as contained in the plaintiff/appellant’s statement of claim, the lower court was right to have struck out the appellant’s suit for want of jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of the suit.”

The 1st and 2nd respondents as well as the 3rd respondent raised similar issue for determination of this appeal. By the rules of this court, parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs, though 1st and 2nd respondent’s joint brief as well as the 3rd respondent’s brief were deemed filed after granting them extension of time to file their briefs.

To appreciate the parties’ arguments on the sole issue, being the jurisdiction of the lower court, it is necessary to look at the appellant’s writ of summons and the statement of claim from which the requisite jurisdictional power of the trial court can be formed. However, it is to be noted that the appellant as the plaintiff in the lower court, initially instituted the substantive suit in 2002, at the State High Court which declined the hearing of the suit on jurisdiction and sent the matter to the Federal High Court. At the Federal High Court also, as earlier stated above, the trial judge per Nwodo, J, also declined on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In order words, the State and Federal High Courts, both in Port Harcourt have ruled that they have no jurisdiction. In the instant appeal, the lower Federal High Court struck out the said suit and ended as follows:-

“Either of the parties may wish to go to a Higher Court to determine the issue” hence, the appellant has appealed to this court.

The appellant’s statement of claim at pages 4-7 of the record in paragraphs 4, 7, 8 and 16 are necessary as they will show which court has jurisdiction to determine the suit.

These statement of claim red as follows:

“4. The list defendant is a subsidiary of the 2nd defendant and has its head office at Odin Road, Ekpan near Warri in Delta State of Nigeria and under-takes the production, transportation, storage and sale of gas.