Compaguie Generale De Geophysique (Nigeria) Limited V. Chief Greenbank G. E. Iheka (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A.: (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against an interlocutory ruling of the Imo State High Court sitting at Orlu in Suit No. HOU/11/99 delivered on 18th June, 1999 wherein the learned trial Judge refused the appellant’s application to strike out the aforementioned suit for want of jurisdiction, the said suit having arisen out of geological survey and other oil exploration/prospecting activities. A summary of the facts leading to this appeal would suffice.

The respondent (as plaintiff at the court below) filed an action at the Orlu High Court, Mgbidi on 7th May, 1999 against the appellant (as defendant) claiming the sum of N20,000,000.00) Twenty Million Naira) as damages for trespass to land in that the respondent’s crops, economic trees and house were damaged when the appellant entered the said land to prospect for crude oil during exploration.

Before the commencement of the hearing of the case, the appellant filed a Motion on Notice on the 13th May, 1999, praying the court below to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction in that the cause of action arose out of seismic prospecting/oil exploration activities. The appellant relied on Decree Nos. 60 of 1991 and 107 of 1993 and also the case of MPIDI BARRY vs. OBI A. ERIC (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt.562) 404.

By a considered ruling delivered on 18th June, 1999, the learned trial judge refused the application on the ground that Decree No. 3 of 1999, being the only operational Decree on the question of the State High Court’s jurisdiction supersedes Decree No. 107 of 1993. The lower court then held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Dissatisfied with the stance of the learned trial judge, the appellant filed Notice of Appeal on 9th July, 1999. The said Notice of Appeal has three grounds of appeal out of which the appellant has distilled three issues for the determination of this appeal.

On 18th February, 2013, when this appeal came up for hearing in this court, learned counsel for the appellant, D. O. Ezaga Esq. who also prepared the appellant’s brief adopted the said brief on behalf of the appellant. B. C. Iheka, Esq. learned counsel for the respondent also adopted the brief of the respondent. The three issues formulated by the appellant are as follows:

“(i) Whether Decree No. 60 of 1991 is a stale law.

(ii) Whether Decree No. 3 of 1999 supersedes Decree 107 of 1993.

(iii) Whether the State High Court has unlimited jurisdiction.”

It was however the view of the learned counsel for the respondent that only one issue is germane for the determination of this appeal. The said lone issue states:

“Whether in view of the premises of the issues of law raised and canvassed in relation to jurisdiction at the lower court, the learned trial judge was wrong in holding that it has jurisdiction to try the Suit No. HOU/11/99.”

Although, the learned counsel for the appellant distilled three issues for the determination of this appeal, he appears to have argued the three issues together in an argument spanning about two pages, though he did not expressly state so. Any wonder therefore that the learned counsel for the respondent distilled only one issue for the determination of this appeal? The truth is that the three issues distilled by the appellant can conveniently be grouped into one issue as couched by the respondent. Accordingly, I shall determine this appeal based on the sole issue as formulated by the learned counsel for the respondent.

In his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that by Section 1(b) of Decree No. 16 of 1992, Section 4 of Decree No. 60 of 1991 was amended to read thus: