‘Federal High Court admiralty jurisdiction prescribed by statutes’

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

NIGERIA On Friday, the 8th Day of June 2012

Before their Lordship Aloma Mariam Mukhtar ...... Justice .....

Justice Supreme Court Supreme Court Francis Fedode Tabai ...... Justice ..... Justice Supreme Court Suleiman Galadima ..... Justice

Supreme Court Nwali Sylvester Ngwuta ..... Justice

Supreme Court Olukayode Ariwoola ..... Justice Supreme Court SC42/2009

Between Ports And Cargo Handlings Service

Company Limited Sifax Nigeria Limited Mr. Babatunde Olarenwaju Afolabi Otunba Michael Olatunde Olowu... Appellant

And Migfo Nigeria Limited Denga Services Limited...Respondent Judgment of the Court Delivered by

Suleiman Galadima, JSC

For ease of reference, the Section is hereby reproduced: “Any admiralty jurisdiction including shipping and navigation on the River Niger or River Benue and their affluences and on such other inland waterway as may be designated by any enactment to be an international waterway, at Federal Ports (including the constitution and powers of the ports authorities for Federal Ports and carriage by sea.”

Earlier, the Court that had held that there was no claim for specific performance went further to hold at page 997 of the Records that:

“Relief 9 is on specific performance of the contents of Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ which calls for finding of the existence of an agreement and then order performance. This relief the High Court can entertain.”

Clearly from the judgment of the lower court quoted above there has been contradiction leading to the misapprehension of the Appeal before it which is related to the issue of jurisdiction of the trial court vis-a-vis the plaintiffs’ claim. If the Respondents’ claim is not a “mere claim of offer and acceptance” and “the term transcended more contractual agreement” as held by the lower court, then what different label has the Respondents given to their claim that does not make it a simple ‘contract’ or ‘agreement’.

For Federal Port to fall under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, such matters must be marine -related. It certainly has nothing to do with the management and operation of the port as the lower Court has held.

The Respondents, with particular reference to Section 7(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act have contended that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction of the suit under reference on the ground that the word “includes” in any enactment enlarges the meaning of those words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute and is construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their natural import but also extending to those things which the section declares that they “include”.

The word “includes” when used in a statute or written enactment can enlarge the scope of the subject matter it qualifies or tends to qualify, only to an extent permitted by law. Section 7 (3) of the Federal High Court Act reproduced hereunder clearly illustrates this point:

“7. (3) where jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court under Subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this section, such jurisdiction shall be construed to include jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues relating to arising from, or ancillary to such subject matter (underlining for emphasis).”

From the above, it is clear that the relevant operative phrase is “include jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues relating to arising from or ancillary to such subject matter”, in determining the relevance of the phrase under reference, it is imperative to determine what the sub-phrase “such subject matter” refers to. From the clear provision of the Act, the only natural interpretation of the phrase “such subject-matter” are those subject matter(s) identified in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the Federal High Court Act; which is in pari materia with the provisions of Section 251 (1) (g) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 (as amended).

From the provisions of Section 7 (1), (2) and (3) of the Federal High Court, the admiralty causes identified therein has to do with “any admiralty jurisdiction, including shipping and navigation and the Rivers Niger, Benue and their affluent 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” (underlined sentences for emphasis).

The instant suit has nothing to do with shipping and navigation on the Rivers Niger, Benue and their affluent or any inland waterway. It is neither connected with or challenging the constitution and power of the ports authorities for any Federal Ports, nor does it invoke any dispute arising from a carriage by Sea. Considering the provision of Section 1(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, it is clear that to determine and give effect to its true meaning the “expression unius est exclusion alterious” maxim of interpretation must be applied. It is trite rule that where a statute mentions specific things, those things not mentioned are not intended to be included. See S.E.C v Kasumu (2001) 10 NWLR (Part1150) Page 509. Despite the wide admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, under Section 1(1) of the Act, the Expression “includes” does not leave the ambit of the Court Jurisdiction open -ended. It is trite that the jurisdiction of a Court cannot be expanded, especially where same has been clearly defined and prescribed by a Statute. See Tukur v Governor Of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Part 117) Page 517. Onuora v K.R.P.C. (Supra): Onwudiwe v F.R.N. (2006) 10 NWLR (Part 988) Page 382 and Gafar v Governor of Kwara State (Supra).

Having come to the conclusion that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction to try this suit, it will be futile and mere academic exercise to proceed to consider the remaining issues by the parties in the appeal and I accordingly so decline to do so. In the light of the foregoing, the Appeal succeeds and is allowed. It follows therefore that the Federal High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction on this Suit and the decision of the court below affirming that decision is set aside. The said Suit is struck out with costs of N50, 000 awarded in favour of the Appellants.

Concluded