Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (Nnpc) & Anor V. Chief Stephen Orhiowasele & Ors (2013)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OLABODE RHODES-VIVOUR, J.S.C.

The respondents as plaintiffs commenced their suit before an Effurun High Court Delta State, presided over by Omo Agege CJ (as he then was) claiming against the appellants (defendants) the sum of Twenty Million Naira for special and general damages for the negligence of the defendants, allowing crude oil spill from its burst oil wells onto the land, swamps creeks, ponds shrines of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sued for themselves and as representatives of the Ogbe-Udu Community, in Okpe Local Government Area of Delta State. Both courts below found for the respondents. The sum of N18,329,350.00 (Eighteen Million, Three Hundred and Twenty-Nine Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Naira) was awarded by the Trial High Court. The Court of Appeal agreed with the learned trial judge but reduced the judgment sum by N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira). Still dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal the appellant have come here on a further and final appeal presenting four issues in their brief deemed duly filed on the 10th of January, 2007. The respondents brief was deemed duly filed on the 2nd of May, 2012.

In the appellants brief four issues were formulated for determination. They are:

1. Whether the respondents claims were statute barred.
2. Whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the respondents.
3. Whether the respondents were entitled to the special damages in the sum of N15,329,350.00 awarded by the lower court.
4. Whether the extra award of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) as general damages after the initial award of special damages amounts to double compensation.

Learned counsel for the respondents adopted in the respondents brief the four issues formulated by the appellants learned counsel.

It is long settled that once the issue of jurisdiction is raised it must be heard first. Once raised all proceedings abate until it is resolved. The issue of jurisdiction is threshold. It is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the court. It is very important, so it can be raised by any of the parties, or even by the court suo motu. Once raised the judge would do well to examine it in detail and rule appropriately. The fundamental nature of jurisdiction is further emphasized by the fact that it can be raised at trial, on appeal and even before the Supreme Court for the first time. Once a court has no jurisdiction to hear a case and it goes ahead to hear the case there would be nothing as useless as conducting a case even if flawlessly only to find out that the case ought not have been heard at all because the judge has no jurisdiction to hear the case. The entire proceeding would be a nullity. Cases conducted without jurisdiction are declared a nullity and struck out. See

Barclays Bank of Nig. v. CBN (1976) 6 SC p.175

Oloba v. Akereja 1988 3 NWLR pt.84 p.508

A.G. Lagos State v. Dosunmu 1989 ALL NLR p.504

Usman Dan Fodio University v. Kraus Thompson Organisation Ltd. 2001 15 NWLR pt.736 p.305.

In view of what I have been saying Issue No.2 on the appellants brief, adopted by the respondents is crucial and important. If it succeeds the entire proceedings before both courts below will be declared a nullity and it will be unnecessary to consider any of the other issues.

Learned counsel for the appellants argued that by Section 7(p) of the Federal High Court Amendment Act and Section 1 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction the Federal High Court and not the State High Court has jurisdiction over the respondents’ claims. Relying on SPDC (Nig.) Ltd. v. Isaiah 2011 11 NWLR pt.723 p.168.

He urged on this court to allow the appeal on this ground.

In reply, learned counsel for the respondents observed that by virtue of the provisions of Section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution the Delta State High Court was correct to hear the respondents’ claims. He further observed that it was wrong to raise the issue of jurisdiction for the first time in this court, contending that it is incompetent and should be struck out.

A trial conducted without jurisdiction is a waste of precious judicial time. The whole proceeding no matter how well conducted and decided would ultimately be declared a nullity. That explains why the issue of jurisdiction can be raised and heard at and time. During trial, on appeal, or in the Supreme Court for the first time.