Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (Nnpc) v. Olajire Alabi (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Ibadan Division delivered on the 16th of February, 2006, Coram: Hon. Justice F.F. Tabai JCA, (as he then was), Hon. Justice G.I. Udom-Azogu, JCA (of blessed memory) and Hon. Justice A.A. Augie, JCA (as he then was).

Therein, their Lordships upheld that part of the decision of the High Court of Oyo State delivered on the 23rd day of April, 2002 presided over by I. O. Lakanmi Chief Judge that, the State High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but held that the State High Court had power to transfer the suit to the Federal High Court pursuant to section 22(3) Federal High Court Act. The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:

The respondents as plaintiffs at the trial court filed a writ of summons dated the 18th day of January, 1990 and claimed against the defendants in their further amended statement of claim the following reliefs:

• The sum of N128, 452,210 (one hundred and twenty-eight million four hundred and fifty-two thousand, two hundred and ten naira) as special damages and N120,000.00 general damages suffered by the plaintiffs in consequence of leakage of the defendant’s petroleum pipes at Oluode/Alafarra/Yemoja villages Apata near Ibadan sometimes in 1988 till now.

(i) An order of the court for immediate repairs of the said leaking petroleum pipes in the said place to avoid further loss of property.

(ii) An injunction restraining the defendant or its servant or agent or its privies from further trespass on the plaintiffs’ land.

The appellants as defendants at the trial court filed a notice of preliminary objection dated the 8th October, 2001, challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court of Oyo State from determining the plaintiffs’ claims. The trial court held that the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The trial court also opined as follows:

“I am aware of the fact and take judicial notice that the Federal High Court Rules enables the court to transfer any matter before it over which it lacks jurisdiction to the State High Court but I cannot find any rule of law in the Civil Procedure Rules of Oyo State of 1988 or any decided authority enabling me to do so. I am enjoined in the circumstance therefore to strike out the present action for lack of jurisdiction.”

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the present respondents as appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court below agreed that the State High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but held that the State High Court had power to transfer the suit to the Federal High Court pursuant to section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act. The court below held that section 22(3) should be given its ordinary meaning and that the Federal High Court had power to transfer to the state High Courts.

Dissatisfied with the part of the judgment that the State High Court had the power to transfer this suit to the Federal High Court, the appellant has appealed to this court. Thus, the parties are still in court to ascertain the proper court with jurisdiction to try a cause filed in 1990. The appellant donated a sole issue for determination thus:

“Whether the learned trial Justices of the lower court are not bound by the doctrine of Judicial Precedent in determining that a state High Court does not have the powers to transfer a suit to a Federal High Court where the rules of the court do not provide for such powers to transfer? (Ground 1 of the amended notice of appeal).”

It is the submission of the appellant in the amended brief settled by Patrick A. Osu, Esq., that the lower courts are bound to follow the decision of a higher court in as much as the facts and circumstances of the case before it are the same. Counsel referred to the several authorities on judicial precedents and the need to follow them. Counsel cited Global Trans. Oceanico S.A. v. Free Ent. (Nig) Ltd. (2001) 12 WRN 136; (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 706) 426, 441 paras. B-C, Suleman v. C.O.P (2008) 21 WRN 1; (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1089) 298.

On the issue in controversy, counsel referred to the precedent in Fasakin Foods Ltd. v. Shosanya (2006) 40 WRN 138; (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 126; (2006) LPELR-1244(SC) to argue that the lower court is bound by the precedent established therein to the effect that a State High Court lacks jurisdiction to transfer a suit to a Federal High Court pursuant to section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act.

The appellant urged the court to affirm its own precedent as set by Fasakin Foods and strike out the case to consequently dismiss this appeal.