Zimiro Emejuru & Anor V. Obediah Abraham & Ors (2018)
LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report
PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.S.C.
The Appellants herein, who were the plaintiffs at the High Court of Rivers State in their writ of summons dated 22nd of January, 1992 and their statement of claim dated 23rd day of November, 2001, claimed against the 1st and 2nd Respondents, who were 1st and 2nd defendants at the trial Court, the following reliefs: –
- A declaration that the land called and known as Ugbate land, the subject matter of this suit, situate at Ubarama in the Ekpeye District of the Ahoada Local Government Area of Rivers State is the bona fide property and owned by the plaintiffs without any encumbrance.
- A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd set of defendants, their agents, servants and privies from alienating, further entering, allotting, partitioning or sharing for farming or any other purpose or putting into any group or individual use the land called and known as Ugbate situate at Ubarama in the Ekpeye District of the Ahoada Local Government Area of Rivers State.
- The sum of N13,380,000:00 as damages for trespass by the third defendant.
1
Before the case was heard, the Appellants, by a motion dated 31st of August, 2000 sought for and were granted an order to join Nigerian Liquified Natural Gas Limited as a defendant.
The Nigerian liquefied Natural Gas Limited was accordingly joined to the suit as the 3rd defendant. It is now the 3rd Respondent in this appeal. As a result of the joinder of the 3rd Respondent, Learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent issued a preliminary objection to the competence of the suit dated 29th November, 2001, in the following words: –
“An order of Court striking out this suit on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain same.”
The ground upon which the preliminary objection is based is as follows: –
“Section 251 (n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria confers exclusive jurisdiction on Federal High Court to entertain civil cases and matters relating to mines and minerals (including oil field, oil mining, geographical surveys and natural gas).”
The preliminary objection was heard by the trial Court. In a reserved and considered ruling delivered on the 6th day of May 2002, Obie Daniel-Kalio J. (as he then was) upheld the objection and struck out the suit.
2
The Appellants appeal to the Court of appeal Port-Harcourt Division was dismissed on the 15th day of January, 2007. The appeal herein is against the decision of the Court of Appeal Port-Harcourt Division. The Appellants notice of appeal filed on the 5th of March, 2007 contains only one ground of appeal and it reads as follows: –
“The Learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in Law when they upheld the ruling of the trial Court that the State High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the plaintiffs”.
Particulars of Error.
(i) The claim was for declaration of title to land, trespass and injunction.
(ii) The addition of another claim for trespass against the 3rd Defendant who broke and entered the land during the pendency of the suit did not alter the nature of the claim.
(iii) The Court below admittedly did not understand or appreciate that the phrase “Connected with” or “pertaining to” does not form part of the provision of Section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, but was introduced by the trial Court.
3
(iv) The Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain claims for declaration of title and the judgment of the Court of Appeal had the effect of shutting out the Appellants from both the High Court and the Federal High Court.
Parties filed and exchanged briefs of argument. Mr. Chidozie Ogunji who settled the Appellants amended brief of argument filed on the 2nd October, 2018, but deemed filed on the 9/10/2018, formulated one issue for determination of this appeal. The sole issue reads as follows: –
“Whether the Court below was right when it held that the Federal High Court was the appropriate forum for the plaintiffs in a claim for declaration of title to land, perpetual injunction and damages for trespass.”
Mr. V.N. Ihua – Meduenyi, Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents also formulated one issue for determination of this appeal as follows: –
“Whether the insistence of the Appellant to prosecute their claim against the 3rd Defendant operated to oust the jurisdiction of the lower Court.”
The 3rd Respondent’s brief of argument settled by Mr. Oluseyi Sowemimo SAN, is dated 8th March, 2010 and filed
4
on the 9th of March, 2010, but deemed filed on 9th October, 2018. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted one issue only for determination of this appeal and it reads as follows: –
“Whether the claims as recited in the statement of claim is connected with or pertains to the subject of mining and natural gas as envisaged by Section 251 (1) (n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.”
The sole issue formulated by learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents as well as the sole issue formulated by the learned senior counsel for the 3rd Respondent do not seem to arise from the sole ground of appeal filed by the Appellant. The sole ground of appeal couched by the Appellants complained that the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in Law when they upheld the ruling of the trial Court. Learned Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Respondents and the Learned silk did not in their respective issue formulated by them make reference to whether the Court of Appeal committed any error or not. They rather formulated issues that touched on the claims at the trial Court. The Law is settled that any issue formulated for determination of an
5
appeal by a respondent must relate to the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant. For a respondent in an appeal who wishes to raise any issue not related to or arising from the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant, such respondent must file a cross appeal.
In the instant case the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents having not filed a cross appeal, have no business formulating issues outside the ground of appeal filed by the Appellants. See Momodu v Momoh (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt.169) 608, Ossai v Wakwah (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt.969) 208. In Wachukwu v Owunwanne (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 1 at 30 paragraph D, this Court held: –
“Besides, the Court can, where it deems an issue formulated for determination of an appeal is not distilled from a ground of appeal, suo motu strike out the said issue, where it so finds in the course of writing his judgment.”
The issue formulated for the 1st and 2nd Respondent and the one formulated for the 3rd respondent clearly attack the decision of the trial High Court. By the provision of Section 233 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to the exclusion
6
of any other Court of Law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Court of appeal. It is very clear that the Apex Court has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from the High Court. Any issue formulated for determination of an appeal before this Court that attacks the decision of the High Court is clearly incompetent and liable to be struck out. On this basis I find the issues formulated for determination of this appeal on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents as well as the 3rd respondent incompetent and accordingly I strike them out. All the arguments canvassed in support of the issues aforesaid are also incompetent. I accordingly strike them out as well.
With the striking out of the issues formulated by the Respondents, I am left with the sole issue formulated by the Appellant for the determination of this appeal. In arguing the appeal, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that, by the nature of the Appellants’ claims, the lower Court was wrong when it upheld the decision of the trial Court that the appropriate Court clothed with the jurisdiction to hear this case is the Federal High Court.
Learned Counsel contended that Court’s jurisdiction is
7
determined by the plaintiff’s claim as endorsed in the writ of summons and the statement of claim. In aid Learned Counsel cited Felix Onuorah v K.R.P.C (2005) 2 SCNJ 179 at 185 paras 30-35, (2005) 6, NWLR (Pt.921) 393.
In a further argument, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellants’ claims at the trial Court has nothing to do with Section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution and that the claim for damages for trespass by the 3rd Respondent in this case is an ancillary relief and that a Court cannot adjudicate over an ancillary claim if it has no jurisdiction to entertain the main claim. In aid Learned Counsel cited, Co-operative Bank Plc v Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (2004) 31 WNR 55 at 63 para 25, Zangina v Commissioner of Works and Housing, Borno State (2001) FWLR (Pt.79) 368, Alphonsus Nkuma v Joseph Otunuya Odili (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt.977) 587.
The lower Court in its judgment made reference to the definition of the phrase, “pertaining to as defined in SPDC v Mavon (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.719) 541 and SPDC v Isaiah (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt.723) 168 and came to conclusion that, by these pronouncements, the claims of the Appellants
8
“pertain to” and concern or arise from “the laying of Gas pipelines”, an area of adjudication reserved for the Federal High Court. With due respect to the learned justices of the lower Court, the words “pertain” or “connected with as used under S.7(1) of the Federal High Court Decree No. 60 of 1991 which was the reference point in SPDC v Maxon (Supra) and SPDC v Isaiah (Supra) are clearly absent in Section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The 3rd respondent was joined in 2001 when the 1999 Constitution had come into operation. Also, the claim in SPDC v Isaiah (Supra) was purely for damages arising from oil spill. There was no claim for declaration of title to land. The main claim in this case is for declaration of title to land. The Appellant sought for and got an order to join the 3rd Respondent in the suit, because the 3rd Respondent, whose oil pipeline ran through the disputed land, went to negotiate for payment of compensation with his opponents whom he believed were not the owners of the land.
The question now is whether the Federal High Court has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the
9
Appellants’ claim for declaration of title to the disputed land. Unlike the State High Court which is a Court of unlimited jurisdiction, the Federal High Court is a special Court with limited but exclusive jurisdiction clearly specified under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I have reproduced elsewhere in this judgment the claims of the Appellants herein. The provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 are very clear and unambiguous. It is the section that confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, which jurisdiction clearly does not include a claim for declaration of title to land.
This Court has in a myriad of decided cases held that the jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the plaintiffs claim as endorsed in the writ of summons and statement of claim. See Onuorah v K.R.P.C. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt.921) 393, (2005) 2 SCNJ 179, Tukur v Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.117) 517, Orthopedic Hospital Management v Garba (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt.788) 538, Adeyemi v Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31, Akin Folarin v. Akinola (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt.335) 659, Okoroma v Uba (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt.587) 359.
10
Since it is very clear that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellants’ claim for declaration of title, can it assume jurisdiction over a claim that is incidental to the main claim of declaration of title. I do not think so. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that a Court cannot adjudicate over an ancillary claim if it has no jurisdiction to entertain the main claim if the ancillary claim will inevitably involve a discussion of the main claim. I agree with this position. The decision of the trial Court which was upheld by the lower Court is an attempt to divest both the state High Court and the Federal High Court of their jurisdiction to hear this case. The State High Court according to the lower Court has jurisdiction to hear the main claim and not the ancillary claim, while the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the ancillary claim, but cannot hear the main claim. Clearly this is a dangerous path to follow, as the appellants will have no forum to ventilate their grievances. This position will undoubtedly give rise to anarchy. The Rivers State High Court has the jurisdiction to hear and determine this case.
11
The sole issue formulated by learned counsel for the Appellants for the determination of this appeal is resolved in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents. I find merit in this appeal, which I allow. The concurrent findings by the trial Court and the Court of Appeal are hereby set aside. It is hereby ordered that the Appellants case shall be heard by the Rivers State High Court on the merit. There shall be cost of prosecuting this appeal which I assess at N500,000 in favour of the Appellants and against the 3rd Respondent.
SC.120/2009