Before Their Lordships
ATANDA FATAYI-WILLIAMS Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
CHARLES OLUSOJI MADARIKAN Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
MAMMAN NASIR Justice of The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Between
Chief P.I.Mokelu Appellant
AND
Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing Respondent
Alternative Citations
(1976) 3 S.C. 60
(1976) All N.L.R 224
……………………A…………………….
Madarikan, J.S.C. (delivering the judgment of the Court):-This appeal is a sequel to the ruling of Belgore J given on the 5th of January, 1974 in suit No. FDC/L/M1/1974 in which the present appellant as plaintiff had taken out an originating summons in the Federal Revenue Court, Lagos, against the respondent under section 10 of the Public Lands Acquisition Act for the determination of the following questions:-
“The amount of compensation payable to the applicant a compensation for the compulsory acquisition of his right, title and interest in the land measuring approximately 200 acres which was acquired by the Federal Government as per Government Acquisition Notice No. 1577 dated 16th July, 1973.”
When the matter came before the lower court on the return date, learned Counsel for the defendant raised preliminary objections on three grounds. One of the grounds was that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action. After hearing arguments, the learned trial Judge gave a considered ruling on the 25th of January, 1974 in which he held that “a question of compensation under section 10 of the Public Lands Acquisition Act is not a cause or matter relating to the revenue of the Government of the Federation” and, after coming to the definite conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the action, he struck out the summons with N10 costs.
The plaintiff has appealed against the ruling on grounds which could be conveniently grouped into two and which appear to us to be in the alternative.
Before us on appeal, the live issue was one of jurisdiction and the appellant’s complaint on this score was directed against the following passage of the ruling:-
“To my mind neither in its explicit nor in its implicit meaning can the word ‘Revenue’ embrace compensation paid out or to be paid from the Government coffers. To my understanding the word ‘Revenue’ in section 7(1)(a) of the Federal Revenue Court Decree means money or money-worth coming to the purse of the Federal Government.”
