Elder Amadi Uchegbu & Ors V. The Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. Nig. Ltd. (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TIJJANI ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Justice, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, Coram E. N. Ogbuji (j) delivered on the 27th day of September, 2004. The learned trial Judge on ground of jurisdiction struck out the suit of the Plaintiffs now Appellants contending that he lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues in dispute between the parties.

The Appellants were the Plaintiffs in the Court below while the Respondent was the Defendant in that Court. By their statement of claim filed along with the writ of summons, the Plaintiffs/Appellants claimed as follows:

“WHEREOF the Plaintiffs claim possession of the piece/parcel of land measuring approximately 1.7 Hectares, situate, lying and being at Umuche, Omuordu, Egbeda in Emohua Local Government Area of Rivers State which was let by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant under a tenancy from year to year at the annual rental value as determined by the Defendant to be N800, and the sum of N10, 000,000 as general damages and an order of the Honourable Court restraining the Defendant by it’s self, servants, agents, assigns, successors-in-title, and/or legal representatives from further acts of trespass-viz: digging, drilling (vertically or horizontally) opening up the sub-soil with pipes either directly or from another piece/parcel of land and all acts inconsistent with a Tenancy and a further order compelling the Defendant to make good all acts of waste by restoring the land to it’s previous state and condition (as it was) at the commencement of the tenancy AND COST.”

The facts of the case that gave rise to the appeal under consideration are that: The Appellants as Plaintiffs in the Court below instituted the action claiming inter-alia possession of the piece/parcel of land measuring approximately 1.7 Hectares, situate, lying and being at Umuehe, Omuordu in Emohua Local Government Area of Rivers State. They also claimed for an order of injunction restraining the Defendant by its self, servants, agents, assigns, successor-in-title and/or legal representative from further acts of trespass-viz, drilling (vertically/or horizontally) opening up the sub-soil with pipes either directly or from another piece/parcel of land and all acts inconsistent with a Tenancy and a further order compelling the Defendants to make good all acts of waste by restoring the land to its previous state and condition (as it was) at the commencement of the tenancy.

The Appellants also filed a motion “Ex-Parte” praying for leave to sue in a representative capacity which was granted by the lower Court on 12th day of June, 2003. (See page 10 of the records). The Respondent was duly served with the writ of summons, the statement of claim and the said Order; the day it was made.

As can be gleaned from the records, Nelson W. Nworgu of Chika Chambers, No. 7 19bokwu Street, D/Line Port Harcourt entered appearance for the Respondent on 26th day June, 2003, served same on the Plaintiffs/Appellants, c/o their Solicitors and played no further role in the proceedings.

The Respondent did not file any statement of defence and therefore did not join issues with the Appellants nor did they call witnesses at the trial. After several adjournments without the appearance of the Respondent and its Counsel, the trial commenced on the 26th day of April, 2004.

The Appellants called two witnesses – PW1 and PW2. The 3rd Appellant testified as PW1 on 26/04/2004 and tendered Exhibit A and ID1 and ID2. PW2, a Bailiff attached to the Deputy Sheriff’s Office testified to the service of the (6 months) Notice to quit and Notice to tenant of owner’s intention to apply to recover possession, (i.e. 7 days Notice). It is to be noted that Exhibits “B” and “C” (formerly ID1 and ID2) were received in evidence through

PW2, who testified as to the service of those statutory Notices?

In a reserved judgment delivered on the 27th day of September, 2004, the learned trial Judge on page 21 of the records held thus:

“It is settled principle of law ‘that where there is a Court with jurisdiction to determine all the issues raised in a matter, including the principal issue, it is improper to approach a Court that is competent to determine only some of the issues’. See Tukur v. Govt. of Gongola State (1989) 9 SCNJ 221 and Military Administrator, Benue State v Abayilo (2001) FWLR (Pt. 45) 602 at paragraphs D – E.

In the circumstance, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Having reached the conclusion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain all the reliefs sought, the proper order to make in the circumstance is striking out the suit. See NDIC v. CBN (2002) FWLR (Pt. 99) 1021 at 1041 paragraphs D – E. In the final result, I make an order striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The suit is accordingly struck out.”

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge as set out above, the Appellants approached this Court with a Notice of Appeal containing three grounds of appeal. The said grounds bereft of their particulars read as follows: