Circumscription of Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in Land Matters
On 13th June, 2007, the Appellant advertised in a national newspaper and invited the general public to bid for the sale of its residential houses in eighteen locations across the country. The Respondent participated in the bid, and the Appellant’s Senior Staff Central Bank of Nigeria Quarters, Bado (Bado Estate) was sold to it. Subsequent to the sale, the Respondent started dealing with the club-house, fuel dump, generator, generator house and an undeveloped land at the Bado Estate, apart from the residential quarters. The Appellant therefore, filed an action at the High Court of Sokoto State, seeking inter alia, a declaration that it is the owner of the club-house, fuel dump, generator, generator house and the undeveloped land at the Bado Estate, as well as damages for the Respondent’s trespass.
The Respondent filed a Preliminary Objection to challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain the suit, but the Preliminary Objection was dismissed. The Respondent unsuccessfully appealed the interlocutory ruling to the Court of Appeal, after which the trial court resumed the hearing of the suit on the merit. At the conclusion of trial, the Court granted all the reliefs sought by the Appellant. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial court, on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The Appellant therefore, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination In determining the appeal, the Supreme Court considered the following issue:
Whether by virtue of Section 251(1)(p)(q)(r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Court of Appeal rightly held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to have entertained the suit.
Arguments The Appellant’s counsel contended that, the subject-matter of an action is a factor to be considered in determining the jurisdiction of a court. He cited the case of MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 All NLR 587 and further submitted that, even where the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party to a suit, the Federal High Court will lack jurisdiction, unless the subject-matter of the suit relates to one of the specified matters upon which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the court by Section 251 (1) (a) – (s) of the Constitution. Counsel also argued that, the principal claim of the Appellant was based on trespass. Therefore, it was wrong to hold that the High Court of Sokoto State lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The Appellant’s counsel stated that, the matter emanated from a simple contract of sale which cannot be described as arising in the course of an administration or management and control of the Federal Government. The Appellant’s counsel maintained that, the Appellant’s claim at the trial court fell outside the ambit of Section 251(1) of the Constitution and matters specified therein. He supported this position with the case of ONUORAH v KRPC LTD (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 921) at 393.
The Respondent’s counsel submitted that, in determining whether a court has jurisdiction, recourse must be made to the statute which created the court. Counsel contended that the relevant statute which created the Federal High Court is the Constitution, and by Section 251(1)(q) of the Constitution, the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain any matter involving a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action, or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. He contended also that, from 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 and 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 State. Therefore, the facts leading to this suit in the trial court and the subject- matter comes within the ambit of Section 251(1)(q),(r) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Federal High Court is the proper court to entertain the suit. He cited the case of Gassol v Turari (2013) 3 SCNJ 277 Page 294 – 295, and other cases. Counsel concluded by submitting that, once an agency of the Federal Government is involved and the requirements of Section 251(1) (p ),( q),( r) of the Constitution has been met, the Federal High Court has and can exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale The Supreme Court held that, in cases initiated vide a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim - EMEKA v OKADIGBO (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1331) Page 55. The Supreme Court also held that, the jurisdiction of any court is derived from the statute creating the court or any statute specifically conferring jurisdiction on the court.
The Appellant’s case was hinged principally on a declaration of title to a portion of undeveloped land at the Central
Bank of Nigeria Staff Quarters (Bado Estate), with ancillary claims for damages and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent from further trespass.
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 were the provisions of Section 251(1)(p),(q) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution, and the provision of Section 39 of the Land Use Act 1978 entrenched in the provision of Section 315(5) thereof.
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 that, based on the 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. Applying the foregoing provisions of the Constitution, for an argument to be sustained as touching any action or proceeding within the ambit of Section 251(1)(p),(q) and (r), such action must relate to or affect the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision of the Federal Government, or any of its agencies.
In WEMA SECURITIES AND FINANCE PLC v NIGERIA AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE CORPORATION (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1484) 93 at 130 -131, the court held that, though the Respondent is an agency of the Federal Government, that cannot without more, confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. Section 251(1) of the Constitution now delineates the jurisprudence of the Federal High Court, and circumscribes it to only eighteen items which are exclusively reserved for the Federal high Court. However, actions on simple contract are not included in those items enumerated above - ADELEKAN v ECU -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.
Applying the above position to the instant appeal, the Supreme Court held that, Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution is not 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 Appellant in the instant case are for declaration of title to land, damages for trespass and injunction to protect its 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. 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(1) of the Land Use Act provides that the State High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of 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.
The National Assembly has 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.
Appeal Dismissed.
“BY SECTION 39(1) OF THE LAND USE ACT, IT IS THE STATE HIGH COURT WHICH HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE DISPUTES IN LAND MATTERS, PARTICULARLY WHERE SUCH DISPUTES RELATE TO DECLARATION OF TITLE TO A STATUTORY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY, AND NOT THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT”