Federal High Court lacks Jurisdiction in Claim for Declaration of Title to Land
“....THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT IS A COURT WITH LIMITED, BUT EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, AS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 251 OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION, WHICH JURISDICTION DOES NOT INCLUDE A CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE TO LAND”
Facts
The Appellants took out a Writ of Summons against the 1st and 2nd Respondents at the High Court of Rivers State in 1992, claiming against them, a declaration that the land known as Ugbate situate at Ubarama in Ekeye District of the Ahoada Local Government Area of Rivers State, is the
bonafide property of the Appellants without encumbrance. While the suit was ongoing, the 3rd Respondent entered the disputed land in 1997, and caused massive destruction of cash crops, buildings and ancestral landmarks in the process of laying gas pipelines. The development prompted the Appellants to apply to amend the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, to join the 3rd Defendant. The Appellants pleaded that the 3rd Defendant entered the land without their consent, caused the destructions aforesaid, and entered into negotiations with the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and indeed, paid compensation to them for the damages occasioned to the property. The Appellant therefore, sought special damages in the form of compensation and general damages.
Upon being joined as a party, the 3rd Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court, alleging that by the provisions of Section 7(1)(n) of the Federal High Court Act and Section 251(1)(n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, the entering into the land for the purpose of laying gas pipelines, is a matter connected with and pertaining to the mining of natural gas. It therefore, posited that exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of the suit is vested in the Federal High Court. The trial court upheld the Preliminary Objection, which ruling was sustained by the Court of Appeal.
Issue for Determination The sole ground of appeal filed by the Appellants, was to the effect that, the 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 Appellants. Thus, the issue formulated by the Appellants therefrom was:
Whether the court below was right when it held that the Federal High Court was the appropriate forum for the Appellant’s claim for declaration of title to land, perpetual injunction and damages for trespass.
The 1st and 2nd Respondents in their brief formulated a sole issue thus:
Whether the insistence of the Appellants to prosecute their claim against the 3rd Respondent operated to oust the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The 3rd Respondent on its part formulated its issue 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 Supreme Court found that, the issues formulated by the Respondents did not arise from the sole ground of appeal filed by the Appellants, as their issues touch on the claim before the trial court. In the absence of a Cross-Appeal by the Respondents, the issues are incompetent, as the Supreme Court cannot hear appeals from the High Court.
The court thereby, adopted the sole and surviving issue of the Appellants, as the issue for determination of the appeal.
Arguments
Counsel for the Appellants contended that jurisdiction of court over a matter, is circumscribed by the claims of the Plaintiff as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, relying on ONUORAH v K.R.P.C. (2005) 2 SCNJ 179 at 185. Counsel submitted further that, the Appellants’ claims at the trial court, did not relate to the provisions of Section 251(1)(n) of the Constitution, and that the claim for damages and trespass against the 3rd Respondent in this case, is an ancillary relief. Calling in aid, the decisions in COOPERATIVE BANK PLC v NIGERIAN DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (2004) 31 WRN 55 at 63; ALPHONSUS NKUMA v JOSEPH OTUNUYA ODILI
(2006) 6 NWLR (Pt. 977) 587, counsel submitted that, a court cannot adjudicate over an ancillary claim, if it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the main claim.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
Deciding the sole issue, the Supreme Court held that, the Federal High Court is a court with limited, but exclusive jurisdiction, as specified under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, which jurisdiction does not include a claim for declaration of title to land. It is the law that, the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the claims of the Plaintiff as endorsed on the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim – TUKUR v GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517. The decision of the trial court, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal, was based on the interpretation of Section 7(1) of the Federal High Court Act, which is impari materia with Section 230(1)(o) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993. The provisions referenced, is to the effect that the Federal High Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction to try civil causes and matters connected with or pertaining to – (o) mines and minerals (including oil fields, mining, geological surveys and natural gas). Section 7(1) of the Federal High Court Act goes further to state in sub-paragraph (5) that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other enactment or rule of law, including the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, any power conferred on a State High Court or any other court of similar jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil cause or matter or proceedings, shall not extend to any civil matter in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred on the court under the provisions of this Section.
The lower court referred to the definition of the phrases – “pertaining to” as defined in SPDC v ISAIAH (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 168, and came to the conclusion that, the claim of the Appellant “pertain to” and connected with “the laying of gas pipelines” is an area of adjudication reserved for the Federal High Court.
The Supreme Court observed that the 3rd Respondent was joined in 2001 when the 1999 Constitution had come into operation. In Section 251(1)(n) of the 1999 Constitution which is impari materia with Section 230(1)(o) of the 1979 Constitution, the phrases – “connected with” or “pertain to” as prefix to “mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas)” are clearly missing. The lower court merely imported these phrases into the provisions of the 1999 Constitution. The law is trite that, the court, in any disguise of exercising its interpretative jurisdiction, is not permitted to play the role of the legislature. It is not permitted to place a gloss on the provisions, by reading or importing into the provisions extraneous matters or words not used by the legislature in enacting the provisions in the first place - UNIPETROL v E.S.B.I.R. (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 317) 413. The court cannot venture outside the provisions of the statute, by introducing there into, extraneous matters that may lead to circumventing or giving the provisions an entirely different meaning from what the law maker intended them to be. “A court does not have jurisdiction to import or impute” into the Constitution, words which are not used therein – OBUSEZ v OBUSEZ (2007) 30 NSCQR 329.
The other provision relied on by the court below, is Section 7(1) of the Federal High Court which adopted the phrases in Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution. The section provides that, the court shall have original jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court to try civil causes and matters connected with or pertaining to – (p) mines and minerals, including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas. Subsection (5) goes further to state that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other enactment or rule of law, including the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, any power conferred on a State High Court or any other court of similar jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil matter or proceedings, shall not extend to any civil matter in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred on the court under the provisions of the Section. The Federal High Court Act is subordinate to the 1999 Constitution and by Section 1(3) thereof; any law which is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency.
It follows that, though the Federal High Court is imbued with jurisdiction to determine the ancillary relief relating to compensation for damages caused during the laying of gas pipelines, the court cannot assume jurisdiction to determine the main claim (which touches on determination of title to land, an exclusive preserve of the High Court). This is more so, where the ancillary relief will inevitably involve a discussion of the main claim. Thus, mere laying of gas pipelines, without more, does not relate to mining activities, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the State High Court which is empowered by Section 39 of the Land Use Act to determine the issue of ownership of the disputed land, and the ancillary claim for compensation for trespass to the land. Appeal Allowed. Representation: Mr. Chidozie Ogunji with Mr. C. Okafor for Appellants. Mr. V.N. Ihua-Maduanyi for the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Mr. Oluseyi Sowemimo, SAN with Remi Coker, Esq. for the 3rd Respondent. Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited (Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR))