Maevis Limited v. Societe International De Telecommunication Aeronautiques (Sita) & Ors (2025) LLJR-SC

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting at Lagos Division (hereinafter referred to as the court below), delivered on 10th December 2014, which set aside the decision of the Federal High Court, sitting at Lagos Division (hereinafter referred to as the trial court), delivered on 17th June 2013.

The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that sometime in 2007, the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (hereinafter referred to as FAAN) initiated a bid process for the provision of services relating to the installation, operation, and management of certain services in four designated airports in Nigeria.

Four companies including the parties to this appeal submitted bid proposals to FAAN. The appellant herein turned out to be the successful bidder and consequently entered into a contractual agreement with FAAN on 31/10/2007.

Sometime between 2009 and 2010, a dispute arose between the appellant and FAAN which resulted in the appellant commencing an action against the FAAN at the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/L/SC/1155/2010.

While the said suit was pending, FAAN proceeded to terminate the contract between it and the appellant through a letter dated 24/3/2011.

FAAN also went ahead and executed another contractual agreement with the respondents herein to provide the same services that the appellant was contracted to provide.

The appellant, however, claimed to have obtained information that the respondents played a major role in getting FAAN to terminate the agreement with the appellant despite a series of letters written to the respondents to desist from intruding into the contractual relationship between the appellant and the FAAN.

The appellant as “plaintiff commenced the suit against the respondents as “defendants” at the trial court by way of a writ of summons, seeking the following reliefs:

“1. A declaration that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff for willfully and intentionally procuring and/or inducing the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) to breach its subsisting agreement with the plaintiff by engaging in inconsistent and prejudicial transactions with FAAN to the detriment of the plaintiff.

2. A declaration that the defendants actions in willfully and intentionally procuring and/or inducing FAAN to breach its subsisting agreement with the Plaintiff is impacting on the plaintiffs ability to collect revenue due to the Federal Government of Nigeria pursuant to the facilities provided by the plaintiff under the Agreement.
3. A declaration that any purported agreement or understanding for the provision of any Common Use Terminal Equipment (“CUTE”) or similar equipment and/or software/application between the defendants (or any of their subsidiaries/ affiliates, agents or representatives) or any other person apart from the Plaintiff and FAAN in respect of any or all of the four (4) airports (already envisaged under the plaintiffs subsisting agreement with FAAN) is invalid, unlawful, ineffective, null and void.
4. An order of injunction restraining the defendants, acting by themselves, in concert with or through their officers, employees, agents, attorneys, privies, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns or any other person, body, group or entity whatsoever and FAAN or any other agency of the Federal Government from negotiating, executing and/ or implementing any agreement whatsoever in respect of, pertaining to, connected with or arising from any or all of the activities envisaged (or similar to those envisaged) under the plaintiffs subsisting Agreement with FAAN (particularly the Common Use Terminal Equipment (“CUTE”) in relation to the four (4) Airports namely: Murtala Muhammed Airport, Ikeja, Nnamdi Azikiwe Airport, Abuja; Mallam Aminu Kano Airport, Kano and Port-Harcourt Airport, Port-Harcourt, during the subsistence of the plaintiffs Agreement with FAAN.
5. An order of this honourable court setting aside any agreement whatsoever executed between the defendants and FAAN in respect of, pertaining to, connected with, or arising from any or all of the activities envisaged) under the plaintiffs subsisting Agreement with FAAN (particularly the Common Use Terminal Equipment (“CUTE”) in relation to the four (4) Airports namely: Murtala Muhammed Airport, Ikeja, Nnamdi Azikiwe Airport, Abuja; Mallam Aminu Kano Airport, Kano and Port-Harcourt Airport, Port-Harcourt for being inconsistent with the plaintiffs subsisting Agreement with FAAN.
6. An order of this honourable court directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of N5,000,000,000.00 (Five Billion Naira) being general damages for the defendants’ willful and intentional procurement and/or inducement of the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (“FAAN”) to breach its subsisting Agreement with the plaintiff
7. Costs of this action.”

At the hearing of the suit, both parties’ witnesses testified and a total of twelve (12) exhibits were tendered and admitted in evidence, and the trial court in its judgment delivered on 17th June 2013, found the respondents liable for inducing the breach of the appellant’s contract with FAAN and the sum of N5,000,000,000.00 (N5 Billion Naira) was awarded in favour of the appellant.

Aggrieved by the decision, the respondents approached the court below. The court below in its judgment delivered on 10th December 2014 held that the trial court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to have entertained the appellant’s claim and consequently set aside the decision of the trial court.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to this court. From the eight grounds of appeal filed, the following two (2) issues were formulated by the appellant for the determination of this appeal, to wit:

1. “Whether the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the appellant’s claim founded on section 251(1)(k) of the CFRN 1999 owing to none of the parties to same being the Federal Government or any of its agencies? (This issue was distilled from ground 2 of the notice and grounds of appeal).
2. Whether the ‘tort’ ought to have been listed as a subject matter under section 251(1) of the CFRN 1999 in order for the Federal High Court to have jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s claim.”

(This issue was distilled from grounds 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the notice and grounds of appeal).