Nigerian Institute Of Medical Research V. National Union Of Road Transport Workers (2010)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

HON. JUSTICE ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against the ruling of the Federal High Court Lagos, coram B. B. Aliyu J, delivered on 7th May, 2007 striking out the plaintiffs/appellant’s suit for want of jurisdiction.

The facts culminating in this appeal are very simple and straight forward and can be aptly summarized thus: The plaintiff now appellant, a parastatal under the Federal Ministry of Health, was established by the National Science and Technology Development Agency Decree No.5 of 1977. The plaintiff instituted the suit leading to this appeal at the Federal High Court Lagos on 14/6/06 claiming ownership of a triangular piece of land measuring 8.8 acres situated at Edmund Crescent, Yaba Lagos and occupied by the defendant now respondent. The defendant neither entered appearance nor filed any defence to the plaintiff’s claim. The matter came up before the trial court on 16/11/06, 1/2/07 and 22/2/07, respectively. The trial court raised the issue of jurisdiction on 22/2/07 and directed the plaintiff to address it, on whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

The plaintiff now appellant addressed the trial court on the issue of jurisdiction on 7/5/07, and the matter was adjourned for ruling. In a considered ruling delivered on 7/5/07, the trial court struck out the plaintiff’s suit in the following words at pages 34-35 of the record:

“Land is not one of the items on which the State High Court exclusive jurisdiction is taken away, nor is it listed under section 251 of the 1999 constitution. The State High Court retains its jurisdiction exclusively. It is note worthy to state that the plaintiff also seeks damages for trespass, if its title is established, and trespass to land is not a subject matter within the jurisdiction of this Court. In the final analysis, I hold that this Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the plaintiffs claim. It is hereby struck out.”

Aggrieved with the said ruling, the plaintiff lodged an appeal against it, pursuant to a notice of appeal anchored on a lone ground dated and filed on 3/8/07. The notice of appeal can be found at pages 36 and 37 of the records. For the purposes of this judgment, the plaintiff and the defendant will hereinafter be referred to as appellant and respondent, respectively. In compliance with the Rules of Court, the appellant’s brief dated 17/12/07 was filed on 27/12/07. Pursuant to an application by the appellant, an order for the substituted service of the processes in this appeal on the respondent was granted on 16/12/09. Consequently the respondent was served the appellant’s brief of argument dated 17/12/07 by substituted means. The respondent however did not file any brief of argument.

On 10th March, 2010 the date fixed for hearing the appeal, the respondent was not represented, though served hearing notice on 3/3/10. Mr. Jude Odome for the appellant adopted and relied on the appellant’s brief which was settled by Mr. O.E. Abang, in urging this court to allow the appeal. Learned counsel submitted that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction under Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution to entertain the action, hence urged this court to resolve the lone issue for determination in favour of the appellant and allow the appeal. As earlier indicated in this judgment, the respondent did not file any brief of argument, so the merits of the appeal will be determined on the appellant’s brief of argument. The lone and singular issue for determination distilled from the sole and only ground of appeal is this:

‘Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in NEPA v. Edegbenro (supra), whether the trial court was right in striking out the suit in want of jurisdiction’.

Learned counsel started by saying that the jurisdiction of any court to hear and determine any suit is provided by statute and the law in existence when the cause of action arose. Learned counsel further stated the general position of the law to the effect that in determining whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs claim, the writ of summons and the statement of claim must be considered to determine the nature of the Claim as disclosed by the facts. Learned counsel however submitted that under Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution, where an agency of the Federal Government is a party whether sued as the defendant or suing as the plaintiff, it is the party or parties that determine the jurisdiction of the court, irrespective of the nature of the claim. Learned counsel further submits that the claim of the appellant being in respect of title to land, ordinarily ought to have been filed at the State High Court but because the appellant is an agency of the Federal Government, section 251(1) (r) of the Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court.

Learned counsel stated that the Supreme Court interpreted Section 230(1) of Decree 107 of 1993, which is in pari material with Section 251(1) (r) of the 1999 Constitution in the case of NEPA v. Edegbenro (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798)79 at 97. Learned counsel submits that ‘any action’ as stated in Section 251 (1) (r) of the Constitution has been interpreted by the apex court in the aforementioned case to mean, any claim involving agencies of Federal Government of Nigeria, can only be entertained by the Federal High Court. Learned counsel posits that the trial court was in error to have declined jurisdiction relying on Section 39(1) of the Land Use Act, as conferring exclusive jurisdiction on State High Court on a claim of title to land. Learned counsel submits that that Land Use Act is deemed to be an Act of the National Assembly and where the said Act is in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution, the Constitution prevails. Learned counsel therefore argued that Section 39(1) of the Land Use Act should be read subject to the provisions of Section 251(l) (r) of the Constitution, which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court where an agency of the Federal Government is a party notwithstanding the nature of the claim in the suit.

Learned counsel further argued that the position has been settled by a full panel of this court to the effect that Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain suits involving Federal Government or its agencies, notwithstanding the fact that the subject matter of the suit involves title to land. In support of this contention, reference was made to the case of Minister of Works v. Shittu (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1060) 351 at 374. Learned counsel contended that the facts in the instant case and NEPA v. Edegbenro (supra) on the one hand, are distinguishable from the case of Onuorah v. KRPC Ltd (2005)6 NWLR (Pt. 922) 393 which the trial court relied on in striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction. Learned counsel attempted making a faint distinction between the instant case and 0nuorah’s case and argued that the apex court in Onuorah’s case never overruled its position in NEPA v. Edegbenro (supra). Learned counsel therefore contended that the principle of law stated in NEPA v. Edegbenro (supra) is still the law and that the trial court applied Onuorah’s case out of con. In concluding, learned counsel urged the court to allow the appeal and hold that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s case.

The issue involved in this appeal, once more brings into fore the jurisdictional aluta and friction between the Federal High Court on the one hand and the High Court of a State.The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of a court or tribunal, hence it can be raised at any stage. It is the centre pin that the entire litigation hinges upon. It can be raised for the first time on appeal without necessarily obtaining leave to do so, and can be raised by the court suo motu. See Oyakhire v. State (2006)15 NWLR (Pt. 1001)157, Omagbhomi v. Nigeria Airways Ltd (2006)16 NWLR (Pt. 1011) 310. Oloriode v. Oyebi 0984)5 SC 260 at 282. Bronik Motors v. Wema Bank Ltd (1983)1 SCNLR 296. Senate President v. Nzeribe (2004)9 NWLR (Pt. 878)251, Oloba v. Akereja 0988) 3 NWLR (pt. 84)508. Moses v. State (2006)11 NWLR (Pt. 992)458, Faghola v. KC.C.LMA (2006)6 NWLR (Pt. 977)43 Gombe v. P.W. Nigeria Ltd (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 402) 402. D.E.N.R. Ltd v. Trans Int’l Bank Ltd (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 399.

It is trite that jurisdiction being a threshold issue, it is fundamental to the exercise by a court of the powers conferred on it by Section 6(6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Jurisdiction of court is the life line of an action. It is the font et origo of the authority of the court to hear and determine a suit. Consequently any adjudication or trial conducted without jurisdiction is a nullity, no matter how well conducted. See Equity Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. Halilco (Nig) Ltd (2006)7 NWLR (Pt. 980)568 at 586, N.D.LC v. C.B.N. (2002)7 NWLR (Pt. 766)272.

For a court to exercise jurisdiction in a matter or a case, it must satisfy the following conditions: