C.G.G. (Nig). Ltd V. Chief Lawrence Ogu (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

TOBI, J.S.C.

The respondent was the plaintiff in the High Court. The appellant was the defendant. In an action filed at the Omoku High Court, Rivers State, the respondent claimed the sum of N3,120,000.00 as special and general damages as a result of alleged wrongful and reckless act of the appellant in breaking and entering into the respondent’s farmland by cutting several seismic lines resulting in wanton destruction of the respondent’s cash/ economics crops and trees, fish ponds, juju shrines and farm house.

In a motion dated 14th August, 1997, the appellant urged the court to strike out the action for want of jurisdiction on the ground that “the claim as disclosed in the writ of summons, statement of claim and the reply to the statement of defence arose from the shooting of explosives and other geological survey activities in the course of oil exploration activities in the oil field.”

The learned trial Judge did not take the issue of jurisdiction in his ruling. He rather took a procedural matter outside the issue of jurisdiction. Although he came to the conclusion that “the acts of the defendant that caused the plaintiff to launch this claim are acts which relate to geological survey activities”, he stopped there and dealt with whether the proviso to Order 24 rule 2 of the High Court Rules 1987 of Rivers State was complied with in the motion. The Judge came to the conclusion that the proviso was not complied with. He dismissed the motion for non-compliance.

Not satisfied with the ruling, the appellant went to the Court of Appeal. That court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the trial Judge for him to determine the question of jurisdiction raised therein. The court said at page 81 of the Record:

“Issue of jurisdiction is fundamental to the hearing of any matter before a court of law. Once it is raised, no matter the manner of raising it, it must be determined by the court before further proceedings can start. The trial court was utterly wrong in begging the issue. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside the ruling of the trial court delivered on the 4th of August, 1998. The case is remitted to the trial court for it to determine the question of jurisdiction raised in the application of the appellant before it.”

Still not satisfied, the appellant has come to this court. Briefs were filed and duly exchanged. The appellant also filed a reply brief. The appellant formulated the following single issue for determination:

“Whether the Court of Appeal ought not to have resolved the issue of jurisdiction and refrain from remitting same as a consequential relief.”

The respondent, on his part, formulated the following issue for determination:

“Whether the court below was right in remitting this case to the trial court for it to determine the question of jurisdiction raised in the motion on notice dated 14/8/97 and filed on 7110/97 by the appellant.”

Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. D. O. Ezaga, submitted that since the High Court failed to consider the issue of whether or not it had jurisdiction to try the matter, the Court of Appeal should have cashed in on the opportunity to determine that issue. This is because the entire facts in affidavit necessary for such determination were already placed before the Court of Appeal, counsel reasoned.

He argued that the issue of jurisdiction is purely one of law that does not require evidence since the statement of claim which determines the issue was also before the court. In the circumstances, to remit the issue to the High Court for determination will not only delay justice but may fail to bring the litigation to an end, learned counsel contended. He cited Odiba v. Azege (1998) 9 NWLR (Pt. 566) 370 and Osasona v. Ajayi (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 894) 527 at 548.

Learned counsel contended that the issue of jurisdiction could be raised at any time, even on appeal, for the first time. He urged the court to hold that the issue, which could be raised at any stage in any court ought to be determined once raised and not to be remitted to a lower court where it was earlier raised. An issue can only be remitted for determination to a lower court where the higher court is handicapped in any form or where the law prescribes such, counsel argued. To remit the case to the High Court is to shy away from duty in the circumstances, counsel maintained.

Having succeeded in the appeal, the consequential order there from ought to be the granting of the reliefs sought in the appeal, viz: (a) An order setting aside the decision of the High Court and (b) An order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction, counsel submitted. He cited Barry v. Eric (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 562) 404 and section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. Counsel conceded that the Court of Appeal granted the first relief.