Abieto Alagoma & Ors V. Shell Petroleum Development Company Limited (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH TINE TUR, J.C.A. (Delivering The Leading Judgment)

The substantive suit commenced before the Federal High Court Port-Harcourt, Rivers State before Honourable Justice A. O. Faji on 26th day of September, 2000. Objection to jurisdiction was raised but his Lordship dismissed same on 27th June, 2003. Faji J., was before hearing could commence transferred out of jurisdiction. Chukwu J., became seized of the proceedings. But when his Lordship was transferred to the Federal High Court, Uyo in Akwa Ibom State, the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, by fiat, transferred same to be heard and determined by his Lordship at Uyo in Akwa Ibom State.

On the 16th day of December, 2010 his Lordship on the application of the respondent struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction. The Notice of Appeal was filed on 17th day of January, 2011 having three grounds. The appellants’ brief was filed on 2nd September, 2011. The appellant formulated the following issues for determination:

“1. Whether the Federal High Court was right when it held that it has no jurisdiction over a claim of compensation arising from the defendant’s acquisition of land in connection with the operation of oil pipeline pursuant to an oil pipeline licence.

2. Whether the application of the defendant in this case did not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
3. Whether the learned trial Judge did not err in law when assuming he was right to hold that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction, he struck out the suit instead of transferring it to the High Court of Rivers State pursuant to the Federal High Court Act, Cap. F12, Laws of the Federation, 2004. (From the 2nd relief sought).
4. Whether this is not a proper case where the Court of Appeal can proceed to hear and determine the substantive claim rather send it back for trial before another Judge.”

The Respondent filed a brief of argument on 11th October, 2011 setting forth the same issues for determination. I need not reproduce them for argument.

The facts are that the respondent entered into what the appellants claimed to be their communal lands and laid oil pipelines causing various kinds of special and general damages without payment of compensation. The writ and statement of claim were filed on 26th September, 2000. The statement of defence was filed on 28th July, 2004. In the course of the proceedings the parties amended their respective pleadings. The amended writ of summons and amended statement of claim were filed on 4th July, 2008. The amended statement of defence was filed on 10th March, 2009.

Preliminary objection was raised that the Court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim by virtue of the provisions of Section 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. In upholding the objection his Lordship held at page 407 lines 16 to page 408 lines 1-9 of the printed record as follows:

“So I will now ask does compensation fail under the provisions of Section 251 (n) of the 1999 Constitution. For avoidance of doubt it reads (251) (n) mines and minerals (including oil fields natural gas). I have seriously looked at the claim of the Plaintiffs and I have tried to stretch the interpretation of claim for compensation to see, if it can come under the afore reproduced definition, but am constrained by its elasticity which has reached a breaking point, and will not still accommodate same. Authorities are galore that claims for compensation come within the amplitude and jurisdiction of the State High Court.

On this proposition of the law, I will place reliance on the cases of Nkume vs. Odili (supra); Oloroama vs. Chief Christian Uba (supra); FMBAI vs. Lagos State Government (supra). With the above authorities in mind I am not in doubt to hold that the case of the Plaintiffs which is in respect of compensation can only be ventilated in the State High Court and I have no jurisdiction to entertain same. I so hold.

Let me for mura suurplussage state here equally that the assertion of the Defendant Counsel that by their pleadings and evidence before this Court, that title is in issue is of no moment as it is only the Plaintiffs’ claim and statement of claim that I should beam my search light to discover if I had jurisdiction and I further hold.

In the end I hold that this suit as constituted cannot be ventilated in this Court and it is accordingly struck out as I have no jurisdiction to entertain same. I make no order as to cost.”

The grounds of appeal are couched as follows:

“1. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction over a claim of compensation arising from the defendant’s acquisition of land in connection with the operation of oil pipeline pursuant to an oil pipeline licence.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR