Chevron Nigeria Ltd. V. Chief Ugwen Roberts Anor (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

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

At the lower court, the respondents as plaintiffs filed a writ of summons against the present appellant as defendant.

The respondents claim as per their Statement of claim is for the sum of N4,835,570.00 for damages to fishing materials loss of fishing time general damages as compensation payable to the plaintiffs (respondents) jointly and severally and on behalf themselves and their communities. namely, Bentubu and Pipeline in Andoni Local Government Area. Rivers State, as a result of the obstruction to the right of fishing way caused by the collapsed mast of the defendant (appellants) in the River of Andoni close to the Ocean.

After the service of the writ on the Appellant, on 3- 12-04, learned counsel filed in Notice of preliminary objection on the ground only that the trial High Court of River State, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate over the suit. Arguments on the preliminary objection were taken, since the issue of jurisdiction had to be resolved first as authourative decision of this appellate and supreme court have stated so, see Ebhodaghe v. Okoye (2004) 18 NWLR (PT. 905) 472; SC; Cherislieb Plc v. Olagbaju (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 863) 342; Chevron (Nig) Ltd v. Lonestar Drilling (Nig) Ltd (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 186; Shell Pet. Dev. Co. (Nig) v. Isaiah (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 168 SC; Fasakia Foods (Nig) Ltd v. Shosanya (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt.987) 126 SC.

The lower court ruled against the Notice of preliminary objection and dismissed same on 26/10/2006. It is against that ruling that, the appellant’ filed its Notice of Appeal on 8th November 2006 containing two grounds of appeal, the appellant filed on 251712007 its brief of argument in which a sole issue is distilled as follows:-

“Whether the High Court OF River State has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.”

The respondent filed on 10/12/2007, a respondent briefs in which they have also raised a sole issue for determination but in different angle, namely:-

wither or not the term “relating to”,”connected with”, “pertaining to”; “arising from” can be imputed to cover Civil Causes and matters in Section 251 ( l) (n) of 1999 Constitution in view of the clear provisions of section 251 ( 1 ) of the said Constitution.”

Based on respondent’s brief, the appellant filed on 21/12/2007′ appellant’s reply brief.

Who the appeal came up for hearing on 9th Feb., 2010, both counsel relied and adopted their respective briefs

The appellant’s argument in the sole issue, is that, the learned trial judge, misdirected himself, when he overlooked the crucial activities that led to the allegation of negligence before he arrived at his conclusion. Appellant is of the view, that, the cause of action filed by the respondents falls within the causes and matters listed under Section 251 (i) (n) of the Constitution of Nigerian, 1999 and Section 7 (i) (n) of the Federal High Court Act’ Cap F12, Laws of Nigeria, 2004. In other words, appellant is of the contention that, the suit appealed against should have been filed at the Federal High Court and not the state High court, whose jurisdiction is not vested to seat and determine matters in connection with oil exploration. In further support of argument, learned counsel has submitted that, the claim of the respondents is for compensatory damages for the negligence of the appellant in not removing its collapsed mast, which abstracted their right of fishing way and damaged their nets. The appellant submitted that, its mast is a device, used in oil exploration, meaning that the alleged negligence if proved, arose from the oil exploration activities of the appellant’ and therefore, it is only the Federal High court that has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear the suit, To support its submission, counsel referred to and relied on this court’s decisions in C.G.G (Nis) Ltd Vs Amaewhule (2006) 3 HWLR (Pt.967) 282, 297. CGG (Nig) Ltd Ogu (2005) 8 NWLR (PT.927 366: Barn, vs. Eric (‘1998) 8 NWLR (PT’ 562) 404; C.G.G SPDC (Nig) Ltd. Vs. Maxon (2001) 9 NWLIT (Pt’ 719) 541.

As earlier stated above, appellant filed on 21st December 2007 appellant’s reply brief. The reply brief is on respondents brief who raised the issue of whether or not, the term ‘relating to”, “connected with”, pertaining to”, “arising from”, can be imputed to cover civil causes and matters in section 251 (i) (n) of the 1999 constitution. The appellant has urged the court to discountenance the respondent sole issue because the reason given by the trial judge on which it is appealed, is that the matter is a tort of negligence, and not one that falls within Section 251 (1) of the Constitution 1999. That therefore for the respondents to lawfully raise and canvass their own version of issue, they ought to have filed a Respondents Notice To Affirm The Judgment of the court Below on Ground other than those relied upon by the Court by giving the notice, specifying the grounds on that Notice- Appellant referred to and relied on other 9 r (2) of the Rules of this court, 2007 and the case of Ibaher v. Barkuro (2007) NWLR (Pt. 475, 487. In concluding the argument in the reply brief, learned counsel has referred to and relied on the provisions of section 7 (3)of the Federal High Court Act where it is provided that the jurisdiction on the Federal High Court under Section 251 (l) of the 1999 Constitution is that :-

“… Shall be construed to include jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues relating to arising from or ancillary to such subject matter.”

Counsel urged this court hold that the words “relating to”, “arising from”, pertaining to” and “connected to”, are applicable in determining the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court irrespective of the of the fact that S.251 (n) of 1999 Constitution does not specifically state so.