Chief P.I. Mokelu v. Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing (1976)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

O. MADARIKAN, J.S.C.

This appeal is a sequel to the ruling of Belgore J given on the 5th of January, 1974 in suit No. FDC/L1M1/1974 in which the present appellant as plaintiff had taken out an originating summons in the Federal Revenue Court, Lagos, against the respondent under section 10 of the Public Lands Acquisition Act for the determination of the following questions:

“The amount of compensation payable to the applicant as compensation for the compulsory acquisition of his right, title and interest in the land measuring approximately 200 acres which was acquired by the Federal Government as per Government Acquisition Notice No.1577 dated 16th July, 1973.”

When the matter came before the lower court on the return date, learned counsel for the defendant raised preliminary objections on three grounds. One of the grounds was that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action. After hearing arguments, the learned trial judge gave a considered ruling on the 25th of January, 1974 in which he held that “a question of compensation under section 10 of the Public Lands Acquistion Act is not a cause or matter relating to the revenue of the Government of the Federation” and, after coming to the definite conclusion that he had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the action, he struck out the summons with N10 costs.

The plaintiff has appealed against the ruling on grounds which could be conveniently grouped into two and which appear to us to be in the alternative.

Before us on appeal, the live issue was one of jurisdiction and the appellant’s complaint on this score was directed against the following passage of the ruling:

“To my mind neither in its explicit nor in its implicit meaning can the word ‘Revenue’ embrace compensation paid out or to be paid from the Government coffers. To my understanding the word ‘Revenue’ in section 7(1)(a) of the Federal Revenue Court Decree means money or money-worth coming to the purse of the Federal Government. ”

Reference was made by learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.L Balogun, to section 7(1)(a) of the Federal Revenue Court Decree, 1973 which reads as follows:

“7(1) The Federal Revenue Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction in civil causes and matters

(a) relating to 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. ”

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the meaning of the word revenue -as used in the sub-section should not be restricted to income but must be taken as embracing income or expenditure of the Government. Counsel more clearly spelt out his argument when he submitted that compensation for compulsory acquisition of land by the Government of the Federation is paid from public funds and that as such expenditure arises out of revenue, any civil cause or matter resulting therefrom ought rightly to be regarded as a civil cause or matter relating to the revenue of the Government of the Federation.

Finally, he submitted that jurisdiction to entertain such action is conferred on the Federal Revenue Court under section 7(1)(a) of the Federal Revenue Court Decree, 1973.

We do not accept nor were we impresseed by the submissions quite ingeniously put forward by Mr. Balogun. We think that the approach of the learned trial judge to the issue of jurisdiction raised before him was quite correct when he said:

“The important issue is, is compensation paid or payable by the Government to an individual a revenue To my mind, neither in its explicit nor in its implicit meaning can the word ‘Revenue’ embrace compensation paid out or to be paid out from the Government coffers. To my understanding the word ‘Revenue’ in section 7(1)(a) of the Federal Revenue Court Decree means money or money-worth coming to the purse of the Federal Government. I am fortified in this my understanding by the definition of Hodges, J. in the case of Stephens versus Abraham (1902) 27 V.L.R. 753 when interpreting section 157 of the Commonwealth of Australia Custom Act of 1901. At page 767 he said: