Attorney-general, Cross River State Vs Attorney-general Of The Federation & Anor (2012)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

Olufunlola Oyelola Adekeye,JSC

The plaintiff, Cross River State, one of the 36 States, instituted this suit in the original jurisdiction of this court pursuant to Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The plaintiff filed her originating summons initiating this suit on 14th September 2009. On the 4th of May 2010, this court directed the plaintiff to convert the Originating Summons into a writ of summons pursuant to Order 3 Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules 2002 and attach all other processes for service on the parties in the suit within 14 days.

PAGE| 3

The defendants were ordered to file their respective frontloaded statement of defence within 45 days of service of the plaintiff’s processes on them. Pursuant to this order, the plaintiff filed the Statement of Claim, Witnesses Statement on Oath and the brief of argument and replies to statement of defence of the 1st and 2nd defendants on 17th May 2010. The defendants filed their respective statements of defence, briefs and written addresses and witnesses statement on oath. At the hearing of this action on 14/5/2012, the plaintiff; 1st and 2nd defendants adopted and relied on the processes filed.

In the statement of claim, the plaintiff prayed for the under-mentioned reliefs:-

A declaration that there was no boundary dispute between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant to warrant the defendants to embark upon a purported boundary adjustment between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and accordingly no basis for the 1st defendant to act on the purported boundary adjustment to the detriment of the plaintiff.

Declaration that the defendants are stopped from raising the issue of boundary

PAGE| 4

adjustment as between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant having regard to the conclusive and binding agreement/resolution reached between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant since 2006 and upon which the parties acted since.

A declaration that the defendants cannot lawfully refuse to accept, act upon or comply with the determination of the boundary between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant made by the 1st defendant in 2006 through its appropriate agency (ies) that was vested with power and authorities over boundary issue.

A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to derivation revenue from the seventy-six oil wells located within 200 meters water depth Isobaths contiguous to its territory as contained in Sections 1 and 2 of the Allocation of the Principle of Derivation Act 2004.

A perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their agents and/or privies from interfering with the plaintiff’s right to revenue from the 76 oil wells within its territory or lying contiguous thereto within 200 meters water depth Isobaths.

An order mandating the defendants to treat the maritime boundary determined by the 2nd defendant in 2006 as the recognized boundary between 1st defendant and the plaintiff and to share all derivation revenue from the area in accordance with that agreed boundary.

A declaration that the historical method for determining the estuarine or maritime boundary between littoral states in Nigeria is valid and that the application of the said method in the settlement of the boundary dispute between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff in 2006 was lawful and valid.