The Government Of Cross River State & Anor V. The Nigerian Television Authority (Nta) & Ors (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ONYEKACHI A. OTISI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Calabar. The 1st and 2nd respondents herein as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs had commenced Suit No FHC/CA/CS/21/2007 at the Federal High Court, Calabar by Writ of Summons filed on 21st March, 2007, in which they claimed as follows:

1. A Declaration that the Survey Plan Area of 7.139 hectares of land occupied by the Plaintiffs along Murtala Mohammed Highway, Block N – Part of Northern Industrial Estate, Ikot Ansa, Calabar, and since 1st April, 1976, is the bona fide property of the Federal Government of Nigeria, nay the Plaintiffs.
2. An Order that the purported revocation of part of the Plaintiffs’ land by the first and second Defendants, for the use and benefit of the third, fourth and fifth Defendants, which Revocation Notice was published in the Nigerian Chronicle of Monday, May 29, 2006 at page 17, is contrary to the Nigerian Television Authority Act, Cap N. 136, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, and therefore null and void, and of no effect whatsoever.
3. An Order that the purported sale of the plaintiffs’ land by the 1st and 2nd Defendants to the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants (private companies) under the guise and camouflage of “public interest” and without recourse to the first plaintiff, or the Minister of information, or the Council of State or the Presidency, is ipso facto null and void, and of no effect whatsoever.
4. A Declaration that the grievous and flagrant acts of trespass upon the plaintiffs’ land, and the massive destruction and, or interference with her properties, including the large block fence, transmitter building, transmission equipment, step-down transformer, two antenna stay-wire anchors, mast, by the defendants, is a gross abuse of state powers, and out rightly unlawful in all respect.

Special Damages of N9.1 (Nine Million, One Hundred Naira Only) being the contract sum spend in fencing round the extensive premises of some sections of the Plaintiffs 7.139 hectares of land.

General Damages of N90m (Ninety Million Naira) only for the inconvenience, embarrassment and reproach occasioned by the mischievous acts of trespass and destruction of plaintiff’s premises and properties.

Upon service, the 6th defendant in the lower court, 4th respondent herein, filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to adjudicate over the subject matter of the suit, which is land. The other defendants therein aligned themselves with the submissions of the 6th defendant. The 1st and 2nd appellants were the 1st and 2nd defendants in the lower court. Upon a considered Ruling delivered on 10th May, 2010, the lower court dismissed the objection. This present appeal filed by the 1st and 2nd appellants, is against the said Ruling of the Federal High Court, Calabar.

The Amended Notice of Appeal, filed on 19/7/2010 but deemed filed on 20/9/2010, states 2 Grounds of Appeal as follows:

GROUND ONE:

ERROR IN LAW

The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that since agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria are parties to the case before him, it is the Federal High Court, not the State High Court that has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR

1. The learned trial Judge acceded to the fact that it is the claim of the Plaintiff that determine jurisdiction, rather than declined jurisdiction, he assumed jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter though the subject matter is land.
2. There is no provision in section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 that vests the Federal High Court with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matters relating to land dispute.
3. It is the State High Court that has jurisdiction in respect of matter relating to land irrespective of the Parties involved.

GROUND TWO:

ERROR IN LAW

The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the State High Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain this suit by virtue of section 1, 39(1) (a) and 49 of the Land Use Act, 1978.

PARTICULARS OF ERROR