CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA v. RAHAMANIYYA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD

md←→ previous / next

Before Their Lordships

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

JOHN INYANG OKORO, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PAUL ADAMU GALUMJE, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Between

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA Appellant

And

RAHAMANIYYA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD Respondent

…………………….A…………………….

OKORO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant in this appeal was the plaintiff at the Sokoto State High Court in suit No. SS/99/2014, whereby in a writ of summons and statement of claim dated 3rd November, 2014, it claimed in paragraph 15(1) – thereof against the respondent who was defendant as follows:-

(1)A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the Club-house, fuel dump, generator and generator house and large portion of undeveloped land at the Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Quarters (Bado Estate)along Birnin Kebbi Road, Sokoto.

(2)The sum of ten million naira damages for trespass on the said land by the defendant.

(3)An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents, privies, whosoever or howsoever called from drilling or further drilling,construction, selling, mortgaging, leasing or any dealings with all the large portion of undeveloped land, club-house, generator and generator house, fuel dump at Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Quarters (Bado Estate) along Birnin Kebbi Road, Sokoto.

(4)Cost of the action.

(5)And any other order or orders that the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

Upon being served with the court’s processes, the respondent filed its memorandum of appearance together with a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit. On 19/5/2015, the learned trial Judge took arguments from counsel and overruled the preliminary objection.That decision was appealed against by the respondent but the court below dismissed same for lacking in merit.

…………………….B…………………….

Subsequent to the decision of the court below, the learned trial Judge resumed hearing of the suit on the merit.

Both parties joined issues in their pleadings. At the hearing of the suit, the appellant called a total of 3 witnesses in proof of its case while the respondent called 2 witnesses. At the close of hearing,the learned trial Judge in his considered judgment delivered on 7/6/2016, granted all the reliefs sought by the appellant and dismissed the respondent’s counter-claim.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Judge, the respondent filed appeal No. CA/S/107 at the court below vide its notice of appeal dated 8/6/2016 and another filed on 4/7/2016. At the court below, learned counsel adopted their respective briefs of argument on 16/2/2017.

The court below allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the learned trial Judge on the ground that the Sokoto State High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the appellant in view of section 251 (p), and of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Piqued by the decision of the court below, the appellant has now filed this appeal before this court vide notice of appeal dated 05/06/2017. The appellant nominated a lone issue for determination as follows:-

“Whether in the light of section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, (as amended,) the learned Justices of the lower court erred in law when they held in the lead judgment that, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained suit No.SS/99/2014.”

On the part of the respondent, a lone issue was also distilled for determination as follows:-

…………………….C…………………….

“Whether by virtue of section 251(1) (p) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended), the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were lawfully right when they held in the lead judgment that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained suit No.SS/99/2014.”

It is glaring that this lone issue nominated for determination by both parties are similar as they both centre on whether or not the court below was right in its decision now on appeal that the trial court had no jurisdiction under section 251 of the 1999 Constitution to entertain the plaintiff/appellant’s action claiming principally a declaration of title to a portion of land.

As ancillary to the main relief the plaintiff/appellant further claimed damages for trespass on the land and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from further trespassing on the land.

The circumstances surrounding the facts that gave rise to the dispute between the parties is that by the Daily Trust National Newspaper of 13th June, 2007 admitted in evidence as exhibit P1, the plaintiff advertised and invited the general public to bid for sale of the plaintiff’s residential houses in 18 locations across the country. The defendant participated in the bid wherein the plaintiff’s Senior Staff Central Bank of Nigeria Quarters, Bado was sold to the defendant through public bidding. It is however the case of the plaintiff that apart from the Senior Staff Central Bank of Nigeria quarters, Bado no other property was included in advertisement dated 13/6/2007. The bone of contention between the parties was therefore, whether apart from the senior staff quarters of Qado Estate sold to the defendant by the plaintiff the club house,generator and generator house, fuel dump and the large portion of undeveloped land were included. The learned trial Judge found in favour of the plaintiff. However, that decision was set aside by the court below on the ground of lack of jurisdiction hence this appeal.

…………………….D…………………….

In his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the subject matter of an action is a factor to be considered in determining jurisdiction of a court. He commended the case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 All NLR 587 (1962) 2 SCNLR341. Learned counsel submitted further that even where the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party to a suit, unless the subject matter of the suit relates to one of the specified matters upon which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal High Court by section 251(1)(a) – of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court will lack jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Counsel cited Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. P. N. Olloh(2002) 4 SC (Pt. 11) 117; (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 773) 475.

Learned counsel further submitted that in determining whether or not a matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, regard must be had to the plaintiffs claim as contained in the writ of summons and statement of claim. It is the contention of learned counsel that the principal claim of the appellant as contained in paragraph 15 of its statement of claim is based on trespass.

Counsel submitted that it is therefore legally wrong to hold that Sokoto State High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Learned counsel relied heavily on the decision of this court in Adetayo v. Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1215) 169 at 190 and NEPA v. Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 79 at 100 – 101.Counsel also made a point that the dispute in this matter emanated from a simple contract of sale which cannot be portrayed as having arisen in the course of an administration or

…………………….E…………………….

management and control of the Federal Government. Learned counsel concluded on this issue by observing that the appellant’s claim at the trial court fell outside the ambit of section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution and the matters specified therein. Counsel supported this point with Onuorah v. K.R.P.C. Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) at 393.

On his part, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the determination of the question whether a court has jurisdiction or not, recourse must be made to the statute that created the court.Counsel submitted that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear and determine matters involving the Federal Government or any of its agencies is in issue in this appeal and the relevant statute which created the Federal High Court is the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). Learned counsel relied on Adetayo v. Ademola (supra).

Counsel submitted that drawing from the above provision of the Constitution and the combined reading of sections 1(1) and 40 of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 the respondent is an agency of the Federal Government. In support of this argument, learned counsel relied heavily on Savannah Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Central Bank of Nigeria (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1137) 237. Therefore, that the facts leading to this suit in the trial court and the subject matter comes within the ambit and confines of section 251(1)(p), (q), (r).

Learned counsel further submitted that the claim of the appellant arose out of an administrative directive given to it by the Federal Government to dispose of its assets in Sokoto and as such the Federal High Court pursuant to section 251(1)(p) is the proper court to entertain the suit. He submitted that the import of section 251(1), is that the Federal High Court has

…………………….F…………………….

jurisdiction to entertain and determine any matter concerning the operation and interpretation of the 1999 Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies. Counsel pointed out that the implication of section 251(1)(r) is that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to hear a matter where it involves an action or proceeding for declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. In support of this position,counsel cited the following cases:- Gassol v. Tutare (2013) 3 SCNJ277 page 294 – 295; (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1374) 221; Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul Raheem (supra); Agbule v. Warri Refinery Petroleum Co. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCNJ 783 ratio 10 page 810 (2013) 6 NWLR(Pt. 1350) 318 and Inegbedion v. Selo-Ojemen (2013) 1 SCNJ 243 ratio 15, pages 30-31 (2013) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1356) 211.

Counsel concluded by submitting that once an agency of the Federal Government is involved and the requirements of section 251 (p), (q), of the Constitution has been met, the Federal High Court has and can exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court.

My Lords, this appeal turns on the vexed issue of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as nominated to it in section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended) vis-à-vis that of the State High Court as donated by section 272 of the same Constitution and other Acts of the National Assembly particularly section 39(1)(a) of the Land Use Act 1978.

…………………….G…………………….

Although this court has in a plethora of authorities considered similar issues, it appears the issue is far from being resolved.

This appeal stems from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, delivered on 17th March, 2017 wherein the court below set aside the judgment of the trial court on the lone issue of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.

The law is indeed well settled that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental in any proceeding and consequently raises the question of competence of the court to adjudicate in the matter.It follows therefore that where a court is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain a case, such proceedings becomes a nullity ab initio no matter how well conducted and decided. Jurisdiction is the live wire of adjudication which should be determined at the earliest opportunity. See Madukolu & ors v. Nkemdilim & ors (1962)2 SCNLR 341; Sken consult (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6;Goldmark (Nig.) Ltd. v. Ibafon Co. Ltd. (2012) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1308)page 291; Nigerian Union of Road Transport Workers & Anor v.Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria & ors (2012) 10NWLR (Pt. 1307) 170.

It is also well settled in law that in cases initiated vide a writ of summons and a statement of claim, such as the present case, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the plaintiff’s statement of claim. See Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1331) page 55; Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 311, 51; Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 and Orthopedic Hospital Management Board v. Garba (2002) 14NWLR (Pt. 788) 538 at

…………………….H…………………….

563. Put differently, the position of the law is that where pleadings are filed in a suit, as in this case, the question of jurisdiction is determined by the plaintiff’s statement of claim and not the defendant’s statement of defence. See Izenkwe v. Nnadozie (1953) 14 WACA 361.

I have already stated elsewhere in this judgment that the claim of the plaintiff/appellant in this case is hinged principally on a declaration of title to a portion of undeveloped land at the Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Quarters (Bado Estate) along Birnin Kebbi Road Sokoto. Ancillary to that is a claim to damages for trespass on the land and an order for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from further trespass on the land.

Guided by the above position of the law, the plaintiff/appellant’s claims at the trial court as earlier reproduced in this judgment shall determine whether or not the court below was right in its decision that the said claims of the plaintiff/appellant fell within the ambit of section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to entertain the matter as against the State High Court wherein the matter was determined.The law is trite that the jurisdiction of any court is derived from the statute creating the court or from any other statute specifically conferring such jurisdiction on the court. The statutes in contention in this appeal are the provision of section 251 (p) of the 1999 Constitution and the provision of section 39 of the Land Use Act 1978 entrenched in the provision of section 315 thereof.

While D. B. Sambo, J. of the Sokoto State High Court found that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit the learned Justices at the court below held a different view. My duty in this appeal is to determine which of the courts below was right. At this point, I shall reproduce and consider the import of section 251 (p)of the 1999 Constitution vis-à-vis section 39 of the Land Use Act 1978. Section 251 provides as follows:-

…………………….I…………………….

“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters –

(p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies;

(q) subject to the provision of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal government or any of its agencies;

(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.”

In considering these provisions of the Constitution, this court,per Mohammed, JSC held in the case of Adetayo v. Ademola (2010)4 (Pt. 1) MJSC 107 at 119 – 120 (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1215) 169 and 1 totally agree and adopt as follows:-

“On the face of these provisions of the Constitution,it appears that impression has been created that the Federal High Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts in Nigeria in any civil cause or proceedings in which the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party. However, a very close, careful and proper interpretation or construction of the provisions would show that this is not necessarily the true position. This is because in my view, it is the facts and circumstances of each case that will determine whether or not it is a case within or outside the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.”

…………………….J…………………….

In applying the above provisions of the Constitution, I hold the considered view that for an argument to be sustained as touching any action or proceeding within the ambit of section 251(p) and such action must relate to or affect the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision of the Federal(1)Government or any of its agencies.

The law is trite that in the interpretation of Constitution, the court is to adopt the broad and liberal approach. Where the words used in the Constitution are clear and unambiguous, they ought to be given their ordinary meaning. See Mohammed v. Olawunmi(1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 133) 458, Rabiu v. State (1981) 2 NCLR 293;Acqua Ltd. v. Ondo State Sports Council (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 91)622; Ishola v. Ajiboye (1994) 6 NWLR (Pt. 352) 506.

In construing the import of the above provisions, this court, per Nweze, J.S.C. held in the case of Wema Securities and Finance Plc. v. Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation (2015) 16 NWLR(Pt. 1484) 93 at 130 – 131 as follows:-

“In my humble view, while it rightly found that the respondent is an agency of the Federal Government FMBN v. Olloh (supra); Idoniboye-Odu v. NNPC(supra); its conclusion that the mere presence of that agency of the Federal Government robbed the trial court of jurisdiction must rankle all liberal constitutional jurisprudence and juridical exegetes. As indicated

…………………….K…………………….

above, prior to the 1979 Constitution, section 7 of the Federal High Court Act, Cap. 134, LFN,1990, set out the limited jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Section 251(1) (supra) now delineates the jurisprudence of that court… and circumscribe it…. to only…. eighteen items…Such matters are,exclusively…. reserved for the Federal High Court….

In effect, the drafts person, deliberately itemized the matters which are intended to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of that court or simply put, therefore,that court is a court of enumerated jurisdiction and,a fortiori, its exclusive jurisdiction is expressly tied to those items enumerated there-under…. As such,in the exercise of its said exclusive jurisdiction, that court (the Federal High Court) can only orbit within the universe of those enumerated issues and to others as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly…. However, actions on simple contract are not included in those items enumerated above,Adelekan v. EUC Line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 993)33 at 52; as such, the court cannot arrogate to itself a jurisdiction only exercisable by the trial court or a State High Court… on such simple contractual matters as the one which, the appellant tabled before the trial court.”

Applying the above position to the instant appeal, it does not seem to me that section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution is a blanket provision which automatically confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court once the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party in any proceeding. It does appear that matters which do not relate to or affect the validity of any executive or administrative decision are outside the purview or contemplation of section 251(1)of the 1999 Constitution.

The claims of the plaintiff/appellant in the instant case are for declaration of title to land, damages for trespass and injunction to protect its

…………………….L…………………….

possession of the land. The executive and administrative action or decision of the Federal government and its agency, the Central Bank of Nigeria is not in any way the subject of the action.

My Lords, I hold the view that in the light of the provision of section 39(1) of the Land Use Act, 1978, it is the State High Courts that have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain proceedings in respect of land disputes. It is instructive to note that the Land Use Act, 1978 was promulgated specifically to deal with the control and management of land in Nigeria. The said section 39 of the Land Use Act provides as follows:-

“The High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the following proceedings:-

(a)proceedings in respect of any land the subject of a statutory right of occupancy grated by the Governor or deemed to be granted by him under this Act; and for the purposes of this paragraph, proceedings includes proceedings for a declaration of title to statutory right of occupancy;

(b)proceedings to determine any question as to the persons entitled to compensation payable for improvements on land under the Act.

(2)All laws, including Rules of court relating to the practice and procedure of the High Court shall apply in respect of proceedings to which this section relates and the law shall have effect with such modifications as would enable effect to be given to the provisions of this section.”

It is quite clear from the above provision that it is the State High Court which has exclusive jurisdiction to determine dispute in land matters particularly where such dispute relate to declaration of title to a statutory right of occupancy and not the Federal High Court. The National Assembly has

…………………….M…………………….

not yet conferred any additional jurisdiction in land matters on the Federal High Court. The Federal High Court can therefore not assume jurisdiction over matters relating to land disputes where there is no statute conferring such jurisdiction on it.

I have found no provision in either section 251 (p)and of the 1999 Constitution or section 39 of the Land Use Act 1978 conferring jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to entertain proceedings for declaration of title to land. The lone issue in this appeal therefore is resolved in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.

I have noticed that appeals on issue of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under section 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) constitute a substantial fraction of the appeals before this court in spite of all the pronouncements this court, and even the Court of Appeal have made and yet the issue is far from being resolved. I wish to propose the point that since it appears that the court is unable to streamline the issue of jurisdiction to the satisfaction of parties, the legislature should make a definite amendment of the Constitution streamlining in unmistakable terms the matters which should go to the Federal High Court and such matters which shall be entertained by the State High Courts. Such amendment would go a long way in guiding both litigants and the courts in mathematical clarity which court has jurisdiction to entertain which matter.

From all I have said above, I find that this appeal has merit and it is accordingly allowed. The decision of the court below is hereby set aside and the decision of the trial court is restored.

Appeal allowed. No order as to costs.

…………………….N…………………….

PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.: I agree with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, John Inyang Okoro, JSC and to underscore the support I have in the reasonings from which the decision came about, I shall make some comments.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division or court below or lower court, Coram: Hussein Mukhtar, Mohammed L. Shuaibu, Frederick O. Oha JJCA which lower court allowed the appeal against the decision of the trial court delivered on the 7th June 2016 in favour of the appellant for all the reliefs sought.

Respondent being aggrieved approached the court below which allowed the appeal and the appellant dissatisfied has come before the Supreme Court.

The facts leading to this appeal are well set out in the lead judgment and I shall not repeat them except when any reference to any party thereof becomes necessary.

On the 21st day of October, 2019 date of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant Abdulkadir Mustapha Esq. adopted the brief of argument filed on 18/8/2017 in which was crafted a sale issue for determination which is as follows:-

Whether in the light of section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, as amended, the learned Justices of the lower court erred in law when they held in the lead judgment that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained Suit No. SC.99/2014.

Learned counsel for the respondent, F. E. Okotete, Esq.adopted the brief of argument filed on 21/9/2017 in which was formulated a single issue for determination, viz:-

…………………….O…………………….

Whether by virtue of section 251(1), (p), (q), of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended, the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were lawfully right when they held in the lead judgment that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained Suit No.SC.99/2014.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that what is for determination is the interpretation of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution and in it is related, the determination of the jurisdiction of a court. He cited Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 All NLR 587(1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria limited P.N. Olloh (2002) 4 SC (Pt.11) 117 (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 773) 475.

That the appellant’s claim before the trial court is principally based on trespass and so the proper court for the adjudication is the Sokoto State High Court and not the Federal High Court. He referred to Adetayo v. Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169 at 190, 191 – 192.

For the appellant, it was further contended that there is no definite provision that confers automatic and exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in every action by or against the Federal Government regardless of the subject matter including contact. It was cited the case of NEPA v. Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt.798)79 – 101; Onuorah v. K.R.P.C. Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393;Kakih v. PDP (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt.1430) 374 at 141.

…………………….P…………………….

Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the appellant is an agency of the Federal Government and all the facts leading to this suit at the trial court and subject matter come within the ambit and confines of section 251 (1), (p) (q), CFRN and therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. He cited Savannah Bank of Nigeria Plc v. CBN (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt.1137)237 etc.

The stance of the appellant briefly is that the suit was not one of those caught by section 251 of the 1999 Constitution upon which the matter was in the exclusive adjudicatory domain of the Federal High Court. That position is disagreed with by the respondent who contends that the appellant as an agent of the Federal Government has its matter whether as plaintiff or defendant has to be tried by the Federal High Court and not the State High Court such as the Sokoto State High Court.

Indeed, the thrust of this appeal stemming from the background relates to the statutory interpretation of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria and in that interpretation, the subject matter of the action is a factor to be considered in determining the jurisdiction of a court especially the trial court being the point in the process, from where the appellate courts would derive their own vires. It follows that in determining the exclusivity of the Federal High Court in an action or proceedings the subject matter as well as the parties must be considered together.

The situation above stated is all the more crucial since where the Federal Government or any of its agencies such as the appellant is a party to a suit, unless the subject matter of the suit relates to one of the specified matters upon which the exclusive jurisdiction is conferred in the Federal High Court by Section 251CFRN, the Federal High Court will lack jurisdiction to entertain the matter and it is the State High Court that will have

…………………….Q…………………….

jurisdiction in such matters. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 All NLR587; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Diamond Bank v. Ugochukwu (2016) 2SCNJ 359;.(2016) 9 NWLR (Pt.1517) 193; Agbule v. Warri Refinery(2012) 12 SCNJ 783; (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1350) 318; Buremoh v. Akande (2017) 1 SCNJ 207 (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1563) 74.

Again to be said is that in the determination of the question whether a court has jurisdiction or not recourse must be made to the statute that created the court. Throwing more light to that statement,the Supreme Court held in Adetayo v. Ademola (2010) 4 SCNJ 32;(2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1215) 169 thus:

“The law is trite that jurisdiction of any court is derived from the statute creating the court from any other statute specifically conferring such jurisdiction on the Court.”

See also Oloruntoba-Oju v. Abdul-Raheem (2009) 6 SCNJ 1 at 29;(2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 83.

In the matter at hand, the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear and determine actions involving the Federal Government or any of its agencies is in issue and the relevant statute which created the Federal High Court is the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended thus recourse must be made to the Constitution. I shall for clarity refer and quote the

…………………….R…………………….

relevant section of the Constitution for our purpose. Section 251 provides thus:

(p) The administration or management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies;

(q)subject to the provisions of this constitution, the operation and interpretation of this constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;

(r)any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies;

Provided that nothing in the provision of paragraph (p),and of this subsections shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages,injunction or specific performance where the action is (q) based on any enactment, law or equity.”

Then the Central Bank of Nigeria Act, 2007 section 1 provides thus:-

“There is established for Nigeria, a body known as the‘Central Bank of Nigeria’ which is further reinforced by the provision of section 40 of the same act which provides, “the Bank may act generally as agent for the Federal Government”.

…………………….S…………………….

There is no gainsaying that a community reading of the two sections situates the appellant is an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria. See Savannah Bank of Nigeria Plc v.Central Bank of Nigeria (2009) 6 NWLR (Pt.1137) 237.

A further illumination on the requirement when determining the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was made effectively by the Supreme Court in the case of Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Limited v. P. N. Olloh (2002) 4 SC (Pt.11) 117 (2002) 9NWLR (Pt. 773) 475 as follows:

“Even if the appellant were to be regarded as a Federal Government agency, it must be recognized that it is a bank by definition and by virtue of the proviso to section 230 of the 1979 Constitution as amended(now section 251) of the 1999 Constitution).

The State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the action against the appellant Bank being a cause founded on a customer/bank relationship.”

The law is that in determining whether or not a matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court regard must be had to the plaintiff’s claims as contained in the writ of summons and statement of claim.

The appellant’s claim before the trial court is principally based on trespass as contained in paragraph 15 of the statement of claim herein under reproduced as follows:-

A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to club house, fuel dumb, generator and generator house and large portion of;

…………………….T…………………….

Undeveloped land at the Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Quarter (Bado Estate) along Birnin Kebbi Road,Sokoto.

The sum of Ten million Naira damages for trespass on the said land by the defendant.

An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its servants, agents, privies whosoever or howsoever called from drilling or further drilling,construction, selling, mortgaging, leasing of any other dealing with all the large portion of undeveloped land,club house, generator and generator house, fuel dumb at Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Quarters, Bado Estate,along Birnin Kebbi Road, Sokoto.

Cost of this action.

Such further and other orders as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The claims of the appellant before the trial court have shown that the Sokoto State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. See Adetayo v. Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169 at 190, per Mohammed, JSC at pages 191 – 192 said thus:-

“Apply this provision to the claims of the plaintiffs/appellants in the instant case although the claims indeed include declaration and injunction, there is nothing being claimed that relate or affect the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies”.

From the foregoing, it is clear that the respondent was unable to show how the declaration as contained in the appellant’s statement of claim can affect the validity of any action or decision of the appellant, the Federal

…………………….U…………………….

Government or any of its agencies.

Again, to be said is that there is no provision that confers automatic and exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in every action by or against the Federal Government irrespective of the subject matter. The case of NEPA v. Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR(Pt.798) 79 – 101 per Tobi JSC has settled whatever confusion as to what to do or what path to trod wherein the Supreme Court stated as follows:-

“As I indicated above, another important area of the subject matter of litigation. In my view, for the Federal High Court to have exclusive jurisdiction, the matter must be a civil matter arising from the administration,management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. The matter must arise from the operation and interpretation of the Constitution.And finally, the matter must arise from any action or proceeding or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative actions or decisions by the Federal Government or any of its agencies.”

It is clear indeed that the provisions of section 251 of the 1999 Constitution being plain, clear and straight to the point which has to be given its ordinary meaning by way of interpretation and which has not made room for jurisdiction in the Federal High Court in land matters as that is the exclusive preserve of the State High Court or High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

A look at the appellant’s claims at the trial High Court shows that the matter was outside the ambit of section 251 CFRN and the matters therein specified.

I agree with learned counsel for the appellant that the dispute in this matter emanated from a simple contract of sale which cannot translate to a

…………………….V…………………….

process stemming from or arising in the course of an administration or management and control of the Federal Government.

Stated differently, once the cause of action is not within the confines of section 251 CFRN, there is no interloping into those provisions so as to donate jurisdiction to the Federal High Court as if to say that in all cases where the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party, the Federal High Court must have jurisdiction no matter the nature of the plaintiff’s claim. See Onuorah v. K.R.P.C.Ltd. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393, Kakih v. PDP (2014) 15 NWLR(Pt.1430) 374 at 414.

In conclusion, there is no running away from the fact that based the foregoing and the better reasoned lead judgment that this appeal is meritorious and is allowed by me. I set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and restore the Judgment of the trial high court.

Appeal allowed. I abide by the consequential orders made.

M. D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.: I read in advance the lead judgment of my learned brother John Inyang Okoro, JSC just delivered. I agree with his lordship’s reasoning and conclusion therein that the appeal being meritorious be allowed. Adopting the lead judgment as mine, I also allow the appeal.

HON. JUSTICE PAUL ADAMU GALUMJE, J.S.C.: [The contribution of Hon. Justice Paul Adamu Galumje, J.S.C. who was a member of the Panel of Justices of the Supreme Court that decided this case could not be obtained despite several efforts made by this publication to obtain same.

ABBA AJI, J.S.C.: My lord J. I. Okoro, JSC, advanced to me a copy of the draft judgment just delivered. I have no difference or dissension to the reasoning and conclusion reached by him in allowing the appeal.

…………………….W…………………….

The appellant crafted this issue for determination:

The appellant’s claim before the trial court contained in its statement of claim reads:

1.A declaration that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to club house, fuel dumb, generator and generator house and large portion of;

2.Undeveloped land at the Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Quarter (Bado Estate) along Birnin Kebbi Road,Sokoto.

3.The sum of Ten Million Naira damages for trespass on the said land by the defendant.

4.An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its servant, agents, privies, whosoever or howsoever called from drilling or further drilling,construction, selling, mortgaging, leasing of any other dealing with all the large portion of undeveloped land,club house, generator and generator house, fuel dumb at Central Bank of Nigeria Staff Quarters, Bado Estate,along Birnin Kebbi Road, Sokoto.

5.Cost of this action

6.Such further and other orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the lower court which allowed the

…………………….X…………………….

appeal against the decision of the trial court in favour of the appellant for all the reliefs sought.

Dissatisfied, the respondent appealed to the lower court which allowed the appeal, hence the appeal by the appellant. Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) states:

“(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise Jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters relating to the revenue of the Government of the Federation in which the said Government or any organ thereof or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the said Government is a party;….

(g)any admiralty Jurisdiction, including shipping and navigation on the River Niger or River Benue and their effluents and on such other inland waterway as may be designated by any enactment to be an international waterway,all Federal Ports, (including the Constitution and powers of the ports authorities for Federal ports) and carriage by sea….

(s)such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly…

(3)The Federal High Court shall also have and exercise Jurisdiction and powers in respect of criminal causes and matters in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred by subsection of this section.”

There is no doubt that the appellant is an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria but the plank of the matter is on declaration of title and

…………………….Y…………………….

trespass to the land of the respondent by the appellant.

By a close examination of the entire provisions of section 251 of the 1999 Constitution prescribing the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to the exclusion of all other courts, there is nothing therein specifically conferring jurisdiction in that court in causes or matters concerning land disputes. Although the section also indicated that the National Assembly may confer additional jurisdiction to the court, there is no indication that such Act of the National Assembly had been promulgated conferring additional jurisdiction to the court to entertain causes and matters on land disputes. If any such additional jurisdiction had been given, the most relevant statute to examine in search for it in my view, is the Land Use Act because jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain land matters cannot be inferred by implication in the construction of section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, the meaning of which is quite clear and plain as no causes or matters in land dispute are mentioned therein. The courts conferred with jurisdiction to entertain disputes between Nigerians in exercising their right to acquire and use land under the Act are clearly specified therein. The relevant sections in this respect are sections 39, 41 and 42 respectively which states-“Jurisdiction of High Courts and Other Courts”.

On the jurisdiction of the High Courts, by section 39(1),the High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the following proceedings –

(a)proceedings in respect of any land the subject of a statutory right of occupancy granted by the Governor or deemed to be granted by him under this Act; and for the purposes of this paragraph, proceedings includes proceedings for a declaration of title to a statutory right of occupancy;

(b)proceedings to determine any question as to the persons entitled to compensation payable for improvements on land under the Act.

…………………….Z…………………….

(2)All laws, including Rules of court, regulating the practice and procedure of the High Court shall apply in respect of proceedings to which this section relates and the laws shall have effect with such modifications as would enable effect to be given to the provisions of the section 41.

It is quite clear from the provisions of the above sections of the Land Use Act with specific powers and jurisdiction in respect of land matters specified therein conferred on State High Court,that the Federal High Court is not one of the courts conferred with jurisdiction to entertain any dispute in land matters. In fact, the purpose which sections 39, 41 and 42 of the Land Use Act, are designed to serve are very clear. In other words, while the state high has exclusive jurisdiction over lands in Urban Areas by virtue of section 39(1) of the Land Use that court shares jurisdiction with only the Area Courts and Customary Courts or other courts of equivalent jurisdiction by virtue of both the jurisdiction of the State High Court under section 272 of the 1999 Constitution and the jurisdiction conferred on the Area Courts and Customary Courts by virtue of section 41 of the Act. As there is nothing in these sections 39, 41 and 42 of the Land Use Act that conferred any jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to entertain land causes or matters, I entirely agree with the court below that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine any dispute on declaration of title to land. See Per Mohammed, J.S.C in Adetayo & Ors v. Ademola & Ors (2010) LPELR 155 (SC) (2010) 15 NWLR(Pt. 1215) 169. Same issue also came before this court in Emejuru & Anor v. Abraham & Ors. (2018) LPELR- 46330 (SC) (2019) 4NWLR (Pt. 1663) 541, wherein it was decided that that the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction in land matters or declaration of title to land and trespass thereto.

The appellant’s appeal must therefore succeed and is hereby allowed. I also abide by the consequential orders made.

Appeal allowed.

Representation

Abdulkadir Mustapha – for the Appellant

F.E. Okotete (with him, R. T. Mustapha and Adah Usman) -for the Respondent