The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited V. Sirpi-alusteel Construction Limited (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

GALADIMA, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of Hon. Justice Obie Daniel Kalio of High Court of Rivers State, Port Harcourt dated 6/5/2006 in suit No. PHC/1289/2004, holding that he had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiff’s (now appellant) suit.

The appellant instituted an action in the Rivers State High Court sitting at Port Harcourt claiming against the respondent, damages for breach of contract awarded the respondent on 20/11/2001 to rehabilitate four crude oil storage tanks at Ughelli in Delta State and an injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the completion of the contract by another person.

It is the appellant’s case that the respondent having been aware of the institution of the suit, they proceeded to the Federal High Court in Benin City, Edo State and filed cross-action on 7/8/2004 with an ex parte motion for an order of injunction restraining the appellant from re-awarding the contract for the rehabilitation of the four storage tanks to any other person which the said court granted on 4/10/2004.

On 15/4/2005, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the suit or in the alternative to stay further proceedings until the conclusion of his cross-action in the Edo State High Court, Edo where it was obtained. But after listening to arguments on both sides the court struck out the suit on 6/5/2005 declining jurisdiction. Dissatisfied with the ruling, the applicant appealed to this court on two grounds.

One issue identified for determination of the court by the appellant in their brief of argument filed on 21/8/2006 reads thus:-

“Whether the court below was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff’s suit”

In the respondent’s brief of argument filed on 28/9/2006, the only issue that arises for determination is similarly stated as follows:

“Was the court below right in holding that it lacks jurisdiction or not competent to determine the plaintiff/appellant’s suit?”

At the hearing of the appeal, respected learned counsel adopted their briefs of argument. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. N. Anyamene, SAN, submitted that where jurisdiction of court is challenged, all the court is required to consider is the plaintiff’s writ of summons and the statement of claim. In the instant case, he contended, the relief sought by the appellant is damages for breach of contract. That the statement of claim lucidly gave the cause of action, not as any act relating to or arising from or ancillary to mining operation, but as the defendant’s inability to rehabilitate storage tanks for crude oil already extracted from the bowels of the earth. It is contended that the tanks are receptacles from which crude oil is delivered to buyers. To rehabilitate a tank, he contended, is to make it serviceable for storing crude oil.

The learned senior counsel further submitted that S. 251(1)(n) of the 1999 Constitution and section 7(1) and 7(3) of the Federal High Court Act give exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court in matter pertaining to mines and minerals including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas. That section 7(3) of the Federal High Court Act stipulates that section 7(1)(n) of the Constitution shall be construed to include jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues relating to, arising from or ancillary to mines and minerals. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the cases of the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited v. Abel Isaiah & 2 Ors. (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 168; Onuorah v. Kaduna Refining and Petro-Chemical Co. Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393 and ruling of the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt dated 20/12/2004 in suit No. FHC/PH/CS./434/2004: Suffolk Petroleum Services United v. The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited.

Finally, learned senior counsel submitted that the action instituted by the appellant is outside the spirit and intendment of the statutes conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court and the respondent cannot be heard to say that any action of the appellant arising from, related to or connected with mines and minerals caused him any “damnum”. He urged the court to set aside the ruling of the learned trial Judge in the court below declining to hear the suit.

On his own part, learned counsel for the respondent, Yekinni Kolawole, Esq. arguing the sole issue as formulated submitted that the statement of claim of the appellant, paragraph 1 stated that the appellant awarded contract for the rehabilitation of four crude oil storage tanks at the Ughelli Quality Control Centre on certain terms and conditions thereto. It is argued that since the tanks which were to be refurbished were to store crude oil from which the oil will be stored and saved for durability before it will be distributed to customers who deal in oil refineries, then it is the Federal High Court only that has absolute power to adjudicate to the exclusion of State High Court. Reference was made to S. 7(1)(n) and 7(3) of the Federal High Court Act. Relying on the case of Shell Petroleum Development Company (Nigeria) Ltd. v. Isaiah (supra), learned counsel submitted that the rehabilitation of the appellant’s crude oil storage tanks is related to, connected with, and arising from or ancillary to mines and minerals.

It is further submitted that the cases of Felix Onuorah Kaduna Refining and Petro-Chemical Company Limited (supra) and Dr. Okoroma v. Christian Uba & Ors. (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 587) p. 359 at 387 section H referred to and relied upon by the appellant are not relevant, particularly that since Onuarah’s case was purely based on a contract to purchase empty tins from the respondent at an agreed amount and payment of the agreed sum was made. Reliance was further placed on the cases of Nkuma v. Anene (2002) 3 WRN 48 and Shodeinde v. T.R.TA.M.I. (2001) 44 WRN p. 25 and Baykam Ventures Ltd. v. Oceanic Bank (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 286) 648 at p. 659.