Lord Amen Osunde & Anor V. Nasiru Shaibu Baba (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HAMMA AKAWU BARKA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, sitting in Benin City in suit No. FHC/B/CS/301/2009, delivered on the 12th of March, 2010, dismissing the appellants preliminary objection, and granting the claim of the plaintiffs. The facts that gave rise to this appeal are as follows:-

The respondent who was the plaintiff at the court below, instituted an action against the appellants by way of an originating motion on notice for the enforcement of his fundamental right to liberty, fair hearing and dignity of human person under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.

The motion was supported by a 27 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Mr. Nasiru Shaibu Baba, the appellant, a verifying affidavit deposed to by the same Nasiru Shaibu Baba, a written statement and counsel’s written address. Hinged on the motion paper is Exhibit ‘A’, a document titled “Testing of flow meter pumps at filing/service stations with unapproved instrument by Edo Sate Task Force on Petroleum Monitoring Committee”, dated the 18th of June, 2009.

Reacting to the application filed, the appellants with the leave of court filed a joint counter affidavit of 16 paragraphs deposed to by Clifford Odio a member and legal Adviser to the Edo State Petroleum Task Force Monitoring Committee (the appellants), a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court and the learned counsel’s written address.

Both counsel adopted their written addresses, and after considering the arguments of counsel, the learned trial Judge on the 12th of March 2010 overruled the preliminary objection, and entered judgment in favour of the respondent.

Aggrieved with the decision of the lower court, the appellants filed a notice of appeal dated the 11th day of May, 2010, seeking for an order setting aside the judgment being appealed from in its entirety.

On the 21/5/2014, V.U. Adeleye learned counsel for the appellants adopted the brief of argument he had filed and settled on the 13/6/2012. In the brief the learned counsel had distilled a single issue for the courts determination:

“Whether the learned trial Judge was right, when he held that the State High Court and Federal High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in all matters of enforcement of fundamental human rights and therefore assumed jurisdiction over the suit notwithstanding the parties and the subject matter of the suit.”

For the respondent, learned counsel, on its behalf adopted a brief of argument settled by K. O. Obamagie, and dated the 22/1/2013, but deemed filed on the 28/4/2014, wherein a single issue was also distilled for determination:

“Whether, the learned trial judge was right when he held that he had jurisdiction to hear respondents’ claim.”

Indeed the issues raised are one and the same thing; I intend to approach, the resolution of the arguments on the basis of the issue formulated by the appellants.

Learned counsel concedes that the Federal High Court and the State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain fundamental human right case raised but contend that in assuming jurisdiction the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter as well as over the parties.

Jurisdiction, he argues is fundamental to adjudication as any exercise without it is a nullity. He contends that it is the conduct of the Edo State Petroleum Monitoring Committee that led to this suit i.e. false imprisonment, wrongful arrest and detention well outside the purview of matters for which the federal High Court has jurisdiction. He argues still that to assume jurisdiction over fundamental human right issues, the breached or threatened right must fall within the provision of S. 251 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. On this, counsel relies on the book, The Practice and Procedure of the Federal High Court with Investment and Securities Tribunal and the National Industrial Court by Sir T.A. Nwamara; and the case of Tukur vs. Gov. of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) at 517 and Okoruma v. Uba (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 587) 359 at 364 – 365.