Oladele Funsho Oladipo V. Nigeria Customs Service Board (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.C.A.

It is very worrisome that thirty six years after its creation, the determination of the question of the precise ambit of the substantive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court has continued to excite curious reactions and provoke divergent interpretations.

The chequered movement of this case exemplifies the odd consequence of this state of affairs. Whereas the Federal High Court holden at Ilorin declined the invitation to adjudicate on the matter on the ground that it lacked the jurisdiction to do so, the State High Court equally chased the plaintiff away from the temple of justice, pleading the same want of jurisdiction.

The effect is that the appellant, like the bat which is neither a bird nor a mammal, has been unable to ventilate his grievance in either of the courts since 2002 when he took out his writ of summons. This speaks ill of our jurisprudence.

The plaintiff, a registered Estate Surveyor and Valuer, sued the Nigeria Customs Services, a Federal Government agency, at the Federal High Court, Ilorin. For their bearing on the question of the appropriate forum for the determination of the matter, we shall take liberty to set out the crucial averments in the Statement of Claim dated April 5, 2002. Specifically, we shall set out the averments in paragraphs 3, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and the reliefs sought:

3. The Kwara State Land Use and Allocation Committee of the Ministry of Lands and Housing allocated Plot No. 18 G. T. T. S. Road, Adewole Housing Estate, ILorin to the plaintiff…
4. The plaintiff on 14th December, 1998, visited his plot at No 18 G. T. T. S. Road, Adewole Housing Estate, Ilorin and discovered that the Customs Services, Kwara State Command, had encroached on his land by seven metres.
5. Following the plaintiff (sic) complaint the Secretary to the State Government wrote a letter to the Controller of Customs for Kwara State on 6th July, 1999, asking the defendant to readjust the wall fence by limiting it to the defendant’s boundary…
6. The Ministry of Lands and Housing again on 30th November, 1999, wrote another letter to the defendant asking it to remove the wall fence which constitute (sic) an encroachment on the plaintiff (sic) land…
7. Despite all these letters the defendant has refused to remove its wall fence thereby disturbing the plaintiff from constructing his wall fence at the side where the encroachment took place.
8. The plaintiff had planned to fence his land in December 1998 but could not do so because of the refusal of the defendant to remove it is (sic) wall fence erected on the plaintiff’s land.
9. The plaintiff up till now could not construct his own fence to demarcate his own land so as to start his project on site.
10. As a result of this undue and unwarranted delay caused by the defendant the plaintiff had and has continue (sic) to suffer loss. Whereof the plaintiff’s claim from the defendant are (sic):

(a) A declaration that the defendant trespass (sic) on the plaintiff (sic) land at plot No 18 G. T. T. S. Adewole Housing Estate, Ilorin by erecting a fence wall on the plaintiff’s land and outside the boundary between the plaintiff and the defendant.

(b) An order that the defendant should remove the said fence and abate further encroachment.

(c) N72,756.00 special damages for the delay in removing the fence despite persistent demand and warning by the plaintiff and Ministry of Lands and Housing

(d) N10, 000. 00 as general damages

(e) Injunction restraining the defendant its servants, agents or any of them from committing further acts of trespass on the plaintiff’s land…

Against the background of these averments, the Federal High Court raised the question of jurisdiction suo motu. It called for addresses on the question. The parties duly addressed it. The court was not persuaded that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter; hence, it struck it out. It gratuitously advised the plaintiff to approach the State High Court.

The plaintiff hearkened to the court’s advice: he filed this action at the State High Court. The learned trial Judge, Elelu-Habeeb J equally implored counsel to address the court on the jurisdiction of the State High Court to entertain the matter. They did. In its ruling of March 20, 2004 [about five years ago!], the court voiced its disavowal of the plaintiff’s approach to the State High Court thus:

I am of the view that the proper court that has jurisdiction to adjudicate over this matter is the Federal High Court sitting at Ilorin.

More especially as the claim of the plaintiff is one seeking for a declaration and an injunction against the defendant which there is no dispute over her being an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria.