Captain Hon. Otiki & Anor V. Alh. Momoh Bajehson (2005)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
UMARU FARUK ABDULLAHI, J.C.A.
This appeal is against the judgment of Kolajo J. of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, delivered in 25th January, 2000. The plaintiff now Respondent sued the Appellants as Defendants before the trial Court.
In his amended statement of claim the Respondent claimed the following:-
(i) “A declaration that the purported revocation of the plaintiff’s land as contained in the New Nigerian Newspaper edition of 25th February, 1994, or letter of 10/4/97 and or any other document in that regard is illegal, unlawful, irrational, unconstitutional, null and void.
(ii) A declaration that the plaintiff is still the lawful owner or a person with sufficient interest in the piece of land situate, lying and being at plot 1295, Zone A6, Maitama District, Abuja, covered by a certificate of occupancy No:FCT/ABU/RW.349 and that the certificate is still subsisting.
ii(a) A declaration that the purported grant to the 1st defendant of the plot of land subject matter of this suit is irregular, unlawful, illegal, null and void and should be set aside.
(iii) A sum of N7,626,576.50 as damages against the defendant jointly and or severally made up as follows:-
(a) N4,017,910:00 being the value of money expended on the building/structure which the defendant pulled down.
(b) N2,608,766:50 being the difference between the sum of N13,359,581:00, the original estimate/cost of the building which the plaintiff desires to erect on the land in dispute and the amount of N15,968,347:50, which will now cost the plaintiff to put up the same building.
(c) A sum of N1,000,000.00 as general damages for trespass committed by the 1st defendant by himself, his agents, privies or assigns on the land in dispute.”
Alterative to Relief (ii):
(iv) “The sum of N4 million representing the current market value of Land at Maitama, Abuja.
(v) Injunction restraining the defendants jointly, and severally by themselves, their agents, servants, privies assigns or anybody claiming through or by them howsoever called from disturbing or further disturbing the plaintiff or any of his authorized agents from enjoyment of the land in dispute.
(vi) Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this ease, including an order for payment by the defendants to the plaintiff of any difference between N2,608,766:50 damages claimed in paragraph 17 iii above or any increase thereafter in the cost of building mentioned thereof”.
The parties exchanged pleadings and joined issues.
The facts of the case briefly are as follows:-
Plaintiff hereinafter referred to as Respondent is the holder of certificate of occupancy No.FCT/ABU/KW.349, over a parcel of land as plot No.1295 at Maltama district, Abuja.
The grant of the certificate was made by the 2nd Defendant henceforth referred to as 2nd Appellant in 1985. The Respondent took possession of the plot for the purpose of developing same. The Respondent took some steps to clear the plot, including obtaining of all necessary approvals to facilitate construction on the site. He commenced development of the land and by February, 1994, the boys quarters had been completed and the main building was almost at lintel level.
The 2nd Appellant, without any notice to the Respondent and without any opportunity to be beard or make any representation, caused to be published in the New Nigerian Newspaper of 25th February, 1994, that the Respondent’s certificate of occupancy has been revoked. The 2nd Appellant then went ahead to grant to the 1st Appellant an enlarged area, but completely subsuming the area earlier on granted to the Respondent.
The Respondent protected the revocation as he bad already expended a lot of money on the land in the process of developing the same.
The 2nd Appellant through its agents, paid visits to the Respondent’s plot to ascertain the claim of the Respondent and in a report they submitted confirmed the Respondent’s claim to be true. The 2nd Appellant in trying to wriggle out of the situation made an offer of another piece of land to the Respondent, which he rejected on the ground that he had already expended large sums of money to develop his plot and he had no funds to start developing another piece of land. Respondent therefore held on to his original grant.
The 2nd Appellant maintained that the original grant made earlier to the Respondent was revoked by virtue of its power under the Land Use Act for non compliance with conditions of the grant.
The 2nd Appellant then went ahead to make another grant to the 1st Appellant on a larger piece of land, but completely subsuming the land originally granted to the Respondent.
On getting his grant, the 1st Appellant sent a written note which was delivered to the workers of the Respondent on site, warning that work should stop on the site.
Eventually the agents of the 2nd Appellant moved in and demolished all the structures put in place by the Respondent. The Respondent then went to Court suing both the 1st and 2nd Appellants.
In a well considered judgment, the learned trial Judge found that the revocation of the Respondent’s certificate of occupancy was null and void not having been done in accordance with due process of law. The learned trial Judge also granted in favour of the Respondent various sums of money as damages for the loss he suffered on account of the destruction of the properly he had constructed.
For the purpose of clarity, I would like to set out the final orders made by the learned trial Judge.
“For the avoidance of doubt, I make the following orders:-
(i) I declare that the purported revocation of the plaintiff’s land as contained in the New Nigerian Newspaper of 25th February, 1994, or letter of 10/4/97 and or any other document in that regard is unlawful, irrational, unconstitutional, null and void.
(ii) I declare that the plaintiff is still the lawful owner or a person with sufficient interest in the piece of land, situate, lying and being at Plot 1295, Zone A6, Maitama District, Abuja, covered by a certificate of occupancy No.FCT/ABU/ KW.349 and that the certificate is still subsisting.
(iii) I declare that the purported grant to the 1st defendant of the plot of land subject-matter of this suit is irregular, unlawful, null and void. The grant to the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant of plot No.1295 expended by the plaintiff on his demolished structures on plot No.1295 aforementioned. I also award the plaintiff N2,608,766;00, being the difference between the sum of N13,359,581:00, the original estimate/cost of the building which the plaintiff desires to erect on the land in dispute and the amount of N15,968,347;50 which will as at June, 1995, cost the plaintiff to put up the same building.
(iv) I hereby, restrain the defendants jointly and severally by themselves, their agents, servants, privies or assigns or anybody claiming through or by them howsoever called from disturbing or further disturbing the plaintiff or any of his authorized agents from enjoyment of the land in dispute. Judgment accordingly”
The Appellants are now appealing against the judgment of the learned trial Judge.
Initially, the 1st and 2nd Appellants filed a joint notice of appeal comprising of four grounds of appeal, but later on, each one engaged the services of different counsel, arising from that, the 1st Appellant with leave of Court filed an amended notice of appeal comprising of twelve grounds of appeal, while the 2nd Appellant retained the original four grounds of appeal.
Again, with leave of Court, the 1st Appellant filed an amended brief of argument on 27/1/04 as well as a reply brief on 18/11/02. 2nd Appellant filed his brief of argument on 24/10/2000 as well as an amended reply brief dated 4/3/04, but formally filed on 1/4/04 with leave of Court.
Respondent filed two briefs of argument. The first brief was deemed filed on 23/10/2001, which is a response to the 2nd Appellant’s brief of argument. The second brief was filed on 18/2/04, which also is in response to 1st Appellant’s brief of argument.
All the learned Counsel adopted and relied on their various briefs of argument as well as the reply briefs.
In his brief of argument, 1st Appellant formulated five issues for the determination of the appeal. The issues are as follows:-
“(i) Was the trial court right in nullifying the revocation of the plaintiff/respondent’s allocation? (covering grounds 5 and 11)
(ii) Whether the trial court gave proper consideration to the evidence on record in determining this ease (covering ground 6)
(iii) Whether on the evidence before the court, the damages awarded to the plaintiff/respondent were right in law? (covering grounds 7, 8 and 9)
(iv) In the light of the evidence on record, was the learned trial Judge right in nullifying the grant of the land in dispute to the 1st defendant, in declaring the plaintiff the lawful owner of the land and in granting injunction against the 1st defendant? (covering ground 10)
(v) Whether having regard to the provisions of Decree 107 of 1993 the lower court had jurisdiction to entertain this case, (covering ground 12)”.
Ground one to four were abandoned. They are accordingly struck out.
I will start with issue (v) covered by ground 12 because it relates to issue of jurisdiction.
Learned Senior Counsel for 1st Appellant in treating this issue relied and adapted the arguments of the 2nd appellant, which was treated under issue one in the 2nd Appellant’s brief. Learned Senior Counsel for 1st Appellant however, added that existing authorities have settled the position that by virtue of Decree No.107 of 1993, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any action against the Federal Government or any of its agents where the claim involves a declaration and injunction. He cited the case of ONA vs. ATENDA (2000) N.W.L.R (Pt.565 at 244 and 275 in support.
Now, to appreciate the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for 1st Appellant, it will be necessary to go to issue No.1 in 2nd Appellant’s brief, adopted by the learned Senior Counsel for 1st Appellant.
Issue one (1) in the 2nd Appellant’s brief which relates to ground one (1) of the 2nd Appellants grounds of appeal reads as follows:-
ISSUE 1
“Does the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory have jurisdiction to entertain the action in view of the Section 230(1)(s) Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No: 107 of 1993 applicable to this case”.
In arguing this issue, the learned Senior Counsel for 2nd Appellant reinstated the position of the law that issue of jurisdiction is fundamental in every legal proceedings as jurisdiction is the bedrock of authority for a Court to entertain and adjudicate upon an action brought before it. Learned Senior Counsel cited some decided authorities in support, KATTO vs. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (1990) 9 N.W.L.R. Part 214 page 126; ODU’A INVESTMENT CO. LTD vs. TALABI (1997) 10 N.W.L.R. Part 523 page.
Learned Senior Counsel also relied on another settled principle of law that it is the plaintiff’s claim that determines the jurisdiction of the Court. He cited the uses UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC vs. ITPP, 2000 12 NWLR part 680 page 99; NIGERIA SOCIAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND MANAGEMENT BOARD VS. ADEBIYI (1991) 13 N.W.L.R part 633 page 16; TUKUR vs. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1988) 4 N.W.L.R part 117, page 517. To illustrate his argument, learned Senior Counsel referred to two items of claim in the Respondent’s amended statement of claim.
“(i) A DECLARATION that the purported revocation of Plaintiffs land as contained in the New Nigerian Newspaper edition of 25th February, 1994/or letter of 10/4/97 and or any other document in that regard is illegal, unlawful, irrational, unconstitutional, null and void.
(ii) A DECLARATION that the purported granted to the 1st Defendant of the Plot of land subject matter of this suit is irregular, unlawful, illegal, null and void and should be set aside. (Page 11)”.
Learned Senior Counsel then referred to Section 230 (1) (b) Constitution (suspension and modification) Decree 107 of 1993. Also Section 230(1) (s) of the same Decree. I shall come to these provisions later on.
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that 2nd appellant is no doubt an agency/organ of the Federal Government of Nigeria, through which the Government carries on its functions of administration of the Federal Capital Territory under the Federal Capital Territory Act.
Learned Senior Counsel cited many authorities in support of his contention; including OKOROMA vs. UBA (1999) 1 N.W.L.R. part 587 page 359; INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE vs. AJGBIREMOLEN (1999) 13 N.W.L.R part 635 page 443; UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN vs. OLUTOLA (1998) 12 N.W.L.R part 576 page 72.
The common principle decided in all these authorities cited, is that by the provision of Section 230(1)(s) of the 1979 Constitution of Nigeria as amended by Decree 107 of 1993, exclusion jurisdiction was conferred on the Federal High Court in actions or proceedings for declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any Executive or Administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any or its agencies. In the same vein, the word ‘Agencies’ used in Section 230(1) (q) (v) and (s) of Decree No.107 of 1993 describes the Federal Government establishments or organs through or by which the Federal Government carries on its function.
Learned Senior Counsel maintained that in the light of the decisions in the cases cited above, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, has no jurisdiction to entertain this action. A defect in competence is fatal to the entire proceedings. The case of ONA vs. ATENDA (2000) 5 N.W.L.R. part 650, page 244 was relied upon also MAKINDE vs. OJEYINKA (1997) 4 N.W.L.R part 497, page 87. The entire proceedings therefore amount to a nullity.
In his approach to this issue, the learned senior counsel for Respondent touched on all the submissions made by the 1st and 2nd Appellants. Learned senior counsel contended that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is as provided for and guaranteed by Section 230(1) of Decree 107 of 1993, which is the relevant law applicable to this action. Learned Senior Counsel went only that far. He then contended that going through the entire provisions of Section 230(1) of Decree 107 of 1993, land matters are not cognizable in the Federal High Court under this law, therefore the issue is not within the powers of the Federal High Court to assume exclusive jurisdiction in land matters.
Learned Counsel explained that land issue was not cognizable at the Federal High Court because of the historical evolution of that Court and that, in interpreting laws and Constitutions it is usually helpful to look at the history of the law or the Constitution. He cited the case of TOGUN VS. OPUTA (No.2) 2001 16 N.W.L.R., part 740 page 597.
Learned Counsel submitted that the position of the Appellants seems to have been occasioned by taking the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 230(1) of Decree 107 of 1993 in isolation with the whole provision, so as to conclude that once a declaration was sought against an agency of the Federal Government it was the Federal High Court that has exclusive jurisdiction. He contended that this approach as adopted by the Appellants is wrong. He submitted that the correct approach using the well-established principles of interpretation was and is that a statute must be read as a whole. That jurisdiction of a Court cannot he lightly taken away except by clear words and intention of a law validly made. He cited the case of IKINE vs. EDJERODE (2001) 18 N.W.L.R, part 745 page 446 at 483 in support.
Learned senior counsel also submitted that Section 230(1) (s) of Decree 107 of 1993 which the Appellants made heavy weather would only be relevant, if it relates to any matter, within the preview of Section 230(1) (a-r) of the Decree. That before the Federal High Court can assume exclusive jurisdiction in a matter, it has to be among these specified within the 19 items listed therein. He cited the case of A.G. FEDERATION vs. A. G. ABIA STATE (2001) 11 N.W.L.R, part 725 page 689 at 749; NEPA vs. EDJERODE (2002) 18 N.W.L.R part 798 pages 98 and 100. He also quoted extensively from the decision of this Court in the case of OKOROMA vs. UBA (1999) 1 N.W.L.R. (part 587), 359.
In this judgment, the Court of Appeal per Ubaezonu, J.C.A. said as follows:-
“I shall now return to the Constitution (suspension modification) Decree No.107 of 1993 hereinafter referred to simply as “Decree No.107 of 1993″ to see if the Decree gives the Federal High Court jurisdiction over matters claimed in his (sic) suit as spelt out in this judgment. In no part of the Decree 107 of (1993) was the Federal High Court given the jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to land as spelt out in the relief claimed in this suit……………it runs from sub-section 1(a) – (s). In nowhere did any of the sub-sections confer jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in matters relating to and right of way, easement, reaping of profits a pendre, trespass to land”.
Finally learned Senior Counsel submitted that the fulcrum of the Appellants’ contention that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent’s case for a declaration and injunction against the agency of the Federal Government over looked the provisions of Section 263, 264 (c-d) 274 (5) (d) of the 1979 Constitution, which were not suspended or repealed.
The 1st Appellant in his reply brief countered the submission of the Respondent with regard to the relevance of the authorities cited by the senior counsel for Respondent to show that Federal High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction on matters based on land, particularly the case of OKOROMA Vs. UBA SUPRA. It is the contention of the senior counsel for 1st Appellant that the decision in OKOROMA given by a panel of three (3) Justices of the Court of Appeal could not take precedent over the decision of ONA Vs. ATENDA, which was given by a panel of five (5) Justices.
Learned senior counsel reinstated that the language of Section 230(1)(s) of Decree No.107 of 1993 is very clear that it gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court in any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies. Therefore since the claims of the Respondent is for declaration and injunction challenging the executive decision of the 2nd Appellant (an agency of the Federal Government) revoking the Respondent’s allocation of land, falls squarely within the provisions of Section 230(1)(s) of Decree 107 of 1993. He submitted further that any type of action whatever be the subject matter will be caught by this provision once the claim is for a declaration or injunction.
To distinguish between OKOROMA’S case and this case, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the case of OKOROMA SUPRA was simply a land dispute between private individuals that the police were joined to the action because they were being used by one of the parties.
I think it is appropriate at this juncture to reproduce the provisions of Section 230 of Decree 107 of 1993.
“Section 230-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly or a Decree, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion to any other court in civil causes and matters arising from-
(a) the revenue of the Government of the federation in which the said government or any organ thereof or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the said Government is a party;
(b) the taxation of companies and other bodies established or carrying on business in Nigeria and all other persons subject to Federal taxation;
(c) customs and excise duties and export duties, including any claim by or against the Department of Customs and Excise or any member or officer thereof, arising from the performance or purported performance of any duty imposed under any regulation relating to customs and excise duties and export duties;
(d) banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and other, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal lender, bills of exchange, letter of credit, promissory note and other fiscal measures:
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute between and individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and the bank;
(e) the operation of any Act or Decree relating to companies and allied matters and any other common law regulating the operation of companies;
(f) any Federal enactment relating to copyright, patents, designs, trademarks, and passing-off, industrial designs and merchandise marks, business names, and commercial industrial monopolies, combines and trusts, standards of goods and commodities and industrial standards;
(g) any admiralty jurisdiction, including Shipping and navigation on the River Niger or River 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 port, and carriage by sea;
(h) diplomatic, consular and trade representation;
(i) citizenship, naturalization and aliens, deportation of persons who are not citizens of Nigeria, extradition, immigration into and emigration from Nigeria, passport and visas;
(j) bankruptcy and insolvency;
(k) aviation and safety of aircraft;
(l) arms, ammunition and explosives;
(m) drugs and poisons;
(n) mines and minerals (including oil fields, mining, geological Surveys and natural gas);
(o) weights and measures;
(p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
(q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution; the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies; and
(r) any action or proceedings for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
(s) Provided that nothing in the provisions of paragraphs (q), and (s) of this subsection shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity. (underlining mine)”.
The positions of both parties are now clear but poles apart. My duty now is to identify which position I accept and for what reason. Indeed, it is settled law that in determining whether a court has jurisdiction in a matter or not, it is very essential to examine or consider the nature of the plaintiff’s claim. (in this case Respondent) as disclosed in his writ of summons and statement of claim.At the expense of repetition, but for the purpose of clarity, I shall set out again, the relevant portion of the Respondent’s claims.
“1. A declaration that the purported revocation of the Plaintiff’s land as contained in the New Nigerian Newspaper edition of 25th February, 1994/or letter of 10/4/97 and or any other document in that regard is illegal, unlawful, irrational, unconstitutional, null and void.
- A declaration that the purported grant to the 1st Defendant (1st Appellant) of the plot of land subject matter of this suit is irregular, unlawful, illegal, null and void and should be set aside.
………..
- A sum of N7,626,576.50 as damages against the Defendants (Appellants) jointly and severally.
- Injunction restraining the Defendants (Appellants) jointly and or severally by themselves, their agents, servants, privies, assigns or anybody claiming through or by them howsoever called, from disturbing or further disturbing the Plaintiff (Respondent) or any of his authorized agents from enjoyment of the land in dispute”.
These are the items of claims made by the respondent in this suit which the learned Senior Counsel for both 1st and 2nd Appellant contended are totally outside the jurisdiction of the trial court, High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja. The reason being that, the provisions of Section 230(1)(s) of Decree 107 of 1993, clearly gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court in “any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies”.
That, infact any type of action whatever be the subject matter will be caught by this provision once the claim is for a declaration or injunction querying the validity of any executive administrative decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. That for the proviso to the sub-section to apply, it must he expressly shown to be based specifically on a particular enactment, law or equity.
As highlighted earlier on, the position of the learned senior counsel for the Respondent is that for Section 230(1)(s) as well as sub-paragraphs (a-r) of Decree 107 of 1993 to apply, it must relate to any matter specified within the 19 items listed therein. It is when this happens that the Federal High Court can assume exclusive jurisdiction. The bottom line of the submission of learned senior counsel is that land matter is not one of the items listed out in Section 230(1)(a)-(s). He cited in support the case of ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION vs. A.G. ABIA STATE (2001) 11 N.W.L.R PART 726 PAGE 689 AT 749. The particular pronouncement of Ogundare JSC (of blessed memory) in this case, reads as follows:-
“It is also argued that it is the Federal High Court rather than the Supreme Court that has jurisdiction. Again, this argument can not be right. Revenue allocation is not one of the items over which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction as provided in Section 251 of the Constitution. The Constitution has given this Court a special jurisdiction in Section 232(1) and this jurisdiction coven the present ease”.
I commend the ingenuity of the learned senior counsel for the Respondent, but I must say with all due respect that the con within which this pronouncement was made by His Lordship is totally different from the situation on the ground. It is not therefore helpful to his case at all.
In my view, the correct approach to the situation on the ground is fully demonstrated in the case of NEPA vs. EDEGBERO (2002) 18 N.W.L.R part 798, page 79. Particularly at page 98 where UWAIS CJN stated the law as follows:-
“The clear intendment of the modification to Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution, by the Constitution (Suspension and modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993, was to confer on the Federal High Court exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the matters specified under sub-section (1) (a) to (s) thereof. The proviso to the section does not whittle down the exclusive jurisdiction. It simply states as follows:
“Provided that nothing in the provisions of paragraphs (q) (r) and (s) of this sub-section shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in all action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.”
The proviso applies merely to the right of a person seeking redress in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance but does not extend the exclusive jurisdiction concerned on the Federal High Court to a State High Court or the Federal Capital territory.”
Also on page 100. NIKI TOBI J.S.C. stated as follow:-
“In construing Section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended, two important matters arise. They are the parties in the litigation as well as the subject-matter of the litigation. The Court must consider both. In construing the parties, the Court will have no difficulty in identifying the Federal Government, but it may have some difficulty in identifying an agency of the Federal Government in certain matters. The case law and the law of agency will certainly be of Help in relevant cases. In this appeal, both counsel agree That the appellant, the National Electric Power authority is an agency of the Federal Government. They are correct. It cannot be otherwise. See ADEBILEJE V8. NEPA (1998) 12 N.W.L.R. (Part 577) 219.
As I indicated above, another important area is the Subject-matter of the litigation. In my view, for the Federal High Court to have exclusive jurisdiction, the matter must be a civil matter arising from the administration, management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. The matter must arise from the operation and interpretation of the Constitution, and finally, the matter must arise from any action or proceedings for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decisions by the Federal Government, or any of its agencies. I sound prolix. It is for purposes of emphasis”
I entirely agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the Respondent, Mr. R.A. Lawal-Rabana that the plaintiff’s claim should be looked at alongside with the provision of section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution. See Omosowan vs. Chidozie (1998) 9 N.W.L.R (part 566) 477; Triumph Assurance Ltd. V. M.M.T. Fadiallah and sons Ltd. (2000) 1 N.W.L.R (part 640) 294; Alhaji Abbas vs. Commissioner of Police, Kano State (1998) 12 N.W.L.R (part 577) 308; University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital vs. Mrs. Akilo (2001) 4 N.W.L.R (part 703) 246. I do not however agree with him that the claim which relates to breach of contract of employment has nothing to do with the administration or management and control of the appellant.” Having regard to these clear statements of the law it is no longer in doubt at least for now that the submission of the learned senior counsel for Respondent that the Federal High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction in this case, since land matter is not one of the items listed under Section 230(1) (a-s) of Decree 107 of 1993 cannot be legally correct.
In any case, the claims of the Respondent in this case clearly are for declarations and injunction radically questioning the validity of an executive or administrative action or decisions by the Federal Government, or any of its agencies; the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory.
The impression being created that the core issue of the Respondent’s claim is land cannot be correct and is clearly not vindicated by the amended statement of claim filed and persued by the Respondent at the trials which is:-
“1. A DECLARATION that the purported revocation of the Plaintiffs land as contained in the New Nigeria Newspaper Edition of 25th February, 1994/or letter of 10/4/97 and or Any other document in that regard is illegal, unlawful, irrational, unconstitutional, null and void.
- A DECLARATION that the purported grant to the 1st Defendant of the plot of land subject matter of this suit is irregular, unlawful, illegal, null and void and should be set aside.
- INJUNCTION restraining the Defendants jointly and or severally by themselves, their agents, servants privies, assigns or anybody claiming through or by them howsoever called, from disturbing or further disturbing the Plaintiff or any of his authorized agents from enjoyment of the land in dispute”.
The difference is now very clear.
However, I still want to consider some few more submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent at least for the purpose of further clarification.
It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent that the Appellant’s contention that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs claim for a declaration and injunction against the agency of the Federal Government overlooked the provisions of Sections 263, 264 (e-d) 274(5) of the 1979 Constitution, which were not suspended or repealed.
The provisions of Sections 263 and 264 of the 1979 Constitution, which I need not reproduce here are merely concerned with the applicability of the provisions of the Constitution to the Federal Capital Territory as well as adaptation of certain references to certain institutions established in the Federal Capital Territory vis-a-vis other States of the Federation. Example, Senatorial District, Federal Constituency, Office of the Chief Judge of Federal Capital Territory etc. They are just merely General supplementary provisions. With all due respect to the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent, I can not find the provisions of these Sections of any relevance to this case.
I hold the same view in respect of Section 274(5) of the 1979 Constitution, which merely provided that Land Use Act cannot be repealed, amended or voided except in accordance with Section 9(2) of the same Constitution. I cannot see how the provision of this Section can be of any value to his case on this issue of jurisdiction.
In light of the position of the law clearly stated in the case of NEPA vs. EDEGBERO SUPRA, the inevitable conclusion I have to reach on this issue is that the trial Court, High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, has no jurisdiction to hear this case. The proper forum for the determination of the Respondent’s claims is the Federal High Court.
In the light of this conclusion I reached, and the consequential order to follow it would not be appropriate at this stage to consider the remaining issues.
The appeal is accordingly allowed on the issue challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court. Consequently, I set aside the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Federal Capital Territory, Gwagwalada in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/348/94 delivered on the 25th January, 2000. I also strike out the same of the ground that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Each party to bear its costs.
Other Citations: (2005)LCN/1821(CA)
