Mr. E.C.O. Ijeoma V. Petromed Oil Nigeria Limited & Ors (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.C.A.

As Plaintiff, the Appellant had taken out a writ of summons in the Registry of the High Court of Rivers State (hereinafter the High Court) with the following endorsement, against the Respondent:-

The plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants jointly and severally in as follows:- The sum of N120,000,000.00 (one Hundred and Twenty Million Naira) being and representing special and general damages for permanent injuries and disability received by the plaintiff in the course of performing this official duties with the 1st Defendant’s Company”

The claim was repeated at paragraph 31 of the statement of claim dated and filed on the 6/7/96 which also contained the particulars of the special damages claimed. The Respondents filed a statement of defence to the claims and the matter proceeded to trial in the course of which they challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the action by way of a preliminary objection. The objection was that the claims by the Appellant are in the category of admiralty matters over which the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction. After hearing the parties on the objection, the lower court in a ruling delivered on the 29/9/05 upheld the objection, declined jurisdiction and struck out the Appellant’s case. Being aggrieved by that decision, the Appellant caused a Notice of Appeal to be filed against it on the 23/12/05 setting out two grounds of complainant. With the leave of the court granted on the 4/7/07, the terms of ground 1 contained on the Notice of Appeal were amended and the Amended Notice of Appeal deemed properly filed. Briefs of argument were then filed by the learned counsel for the parties to the appeal in line with the practice of the court. The Appellants’ brief was filed on 23/4/07 while the Respondent’s brief filed on the 26/2/08 was deemed properly filed on the 5/5/08 when the application for leave to file the brief out of time was granted.

From the two (2) grounds of appeal, the following two (2) issues were formulated at page 2; paragraph 3.01 & 3.02 of the Appellant brief for determination in the appeal.

“3.01. whether the state High court (Learned Trial Judge) lacks jurisdiction to entertain suit NO. PHC/B33/96 filed by the plaintiff/Appellant against the Defendants/Respondents in the High Court of Rivers State (Ground 1).”

3.02. If the answer to issue No.1 is in the positive, whether the proper order for the Learned Trial Judge to make was not to transfer suit NO. PHC/833/96 to the Federal High Court, instead of striking out same (Ground 2).”

These issues were adopted by the learned counsel for the Respondent at paragraph 2 on page 1 of the Respondent’s brief. Learned counsels are right and so I agree with them that these brief and succinct issues are the pertinent questions that require answers for the complete disposal of the appeal. I would therefore review briefly, the submissions of learned counsel thereon and determine the positions canvassed their in line with the law as settled by the binding relevant judicial authorities.

ISSUE 1.

After conceding that parts of the Appellant claims relates to or are in respect of admiralty or maritime matters which by virtue of section 3 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Decree No. 59 of 1991 (after now Decree No. 59) are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the claim for special damages arose out of a contract of employment and are triable by the lower court. He cited the case of ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL MGT BOARD v. GARBA (2002) 4 NWLR (part 7BB) 538 at 546 and said it was therefore wrong for the lower court in the circumstances to have declined jurisdiction over the Appellants, claims since they are not entirely maritime. It was the contention of learned counsel, relying on the case of ALUMINIUM MANUF. CO. (NIG.) LTD V. N. P.A. (1987) 2 SC 254 at 264, that either the lower court or the Federal High court can assume jurisdiction over the Appellants’ claims. We were urged by him to resolve the issue in the negative and hold that the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain the Appellants’ claim.

For the Respondent, it was submitted that the Appellant’s claim were not dual in nature, i.e. both contractual and tortuous but purely the latter. Since the thrust of the complaint by him was that the Respondents had breached a duty of care owed to him as an employee and that loss had thereby been suffered by him.

Paragraphs 26 28 of the Appellant’s statement of claim were referred to and it was further argued that apart from a passing reference to breach of contract in paragraph 27 of the statement of claim, no foundation was laid by the Appellant for a claim in contract as no violation or particulars of any term of the contract was set out.

That the Appellant had at the trial characterized his claim as one in negligence particularly at page 47, lines 11 – 14 and 48, lines 20 – 22 and so the claim was not in contract, which the Appellant can set up at this stage. The case of IDIRISU v. OBAREMI (2004) 11 NWLR (part.884) 396 at 410 was relied on for the submission.

In addition, it was submitted that for the purpose of determining jurisdiction, it is utterly immaterial whether a claim is party maritime or partly under a contract of employment since it is the law that once the facts of a claim bring it within the purview of a statute, the statute must be given legal effect SHELL DEV. CO. V MAXDN (2001) 9 NWLR (part 719) 541 at 552 – 3 was cited as authority for that position. According to learned counsel, the facts of the Appellants’ claim squarely fall within the ambit of section 2(3) (d) (i) and (iii) of Decree No. 59 and since the provisions are clear and unambiguous, they should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Reliance was placed on A. G. FED. v. ABOLE (2005) 11 NWLR (part 936) 369 for the submission and EKUNOLA V. CBN (2006) 14 NWLR (part 1000) 292 on duty of the court to promote the general purport, spirit or intendment of legislation. It was the case of the Respondent that the lower court had no option but to give effect to the above sections of Decree No.59 and in law, to strike out the suit when it decided that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims, on the authority of OKOYE v. NIG. CONSTR. & FURNITURE CO. LTD. (1991) 7 SCNJ (part 2) 365.