Compagnie Genrralede Geophysique (Nig.) Ltd V. Luke Asaagbara & Anor (2000)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
PATS-ACHOLONU, J.C.A.
In this case, the plaintiff who worked for the defendant as a casing clerk had filed an action against the defendant now Appellant which is a company that is engaged in oil exploration activities of drilling nature and which involves carrying of heavy pipes in the fields. In the course of the plaintiff’s work he has to put on some overall. The overall garment was said to have been torn by a sharp stick on the swampy terrain the parties were working. The stick tore through his penis and pierced his scrotum and the stomach. He was hospitalized in Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital where he was treated after which he was given a paper that he is now impotent.
He brought this action against the Appellant for negligence. The Appellant then as defendant filed a motion praying the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction. The motion was supported by an affidavit of 6 paragraphs. Paragraph 4 of that affidavit states that:
“In determining the case of negligence, the Court below will determine the issue of weight of casing pipes used in the Oil field and procedure of exploratory activities…”
A further averment following that states that, if that is the case, then the High Court of Rivers State has no business with assuming jurisdiction as such jurisdiction is vested in the Federal High Court.
The counter-affidavit filed debunked the issue of the Court below embarking into issue of casing or procedures of exploration activities pointing out the case against the defendants is that of simple tort of negligence of which the State High Court has the exclusive jurisdiction.
In his ruling, the Court below held inter alia:
“I have had a look at the relevant enactments from Cap. 134 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, through Decrees No. 60 of 1991, No. 66 of 1992 and 107 of 1993. I am of the view that there is nothing in their provision to exclude a claim for personal injury suffered by a person who claims to be an employee of the defendants based on negligence from being laid in a State High Court having regard to the circumstances of the case. I find that most of the decided cases referred to by counsel deal mainly with the peripheral issue of principles governing the application of ouster clauses”.
He thereupon dismissed the application.
The Defendant/Appellant then appealed to this Court and formulated 3 issues while the Respondent also framed 3 issues for consideration.
In my view, the real issue is “whether the State High Court has jurisdiction to try cases of such negligent matter arising out of the operation of mines and minerals and oil explorations including geological surveys and exploitation of”.
To determine whether the State High Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter, it is necessary to refer to the provision of the Act which confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court oil exploration and survey related matter and find out how the claim comes within the purview of a particular judicial hierarchy. In his argument, the learned Counsel for the Appellant first referred to section 15(1) of the Petroleum Act, Cap, 350, Laws of the Federation 1990 in relation to Petroleum and its exploits and what is involved. There, the law describes ‘explore’ to include ‘To make a preliminary search by surface geological and geophysical methods including aerial surveys but excluding drilling below 91.44 metres’. Equally too, the section defines the word ‘prospect’ to mean search for by all geological and geophysical methods including drilling and seismic operations. The Appellant Counsel submits that this involves geological survey activities in an oil field.
It was argued that since the 1st Respondent sustained injuries when he was involved in the company’s operation when the injury was sustained, the whole matter was related and connected with and pertaining to and/or arising from subject-matter of mines and mineral including oil field, oil mining and geological surveys. On the other hand, it is the Respondents argument that the injury caused by the negligence of the Appellants did not arise from mines and minerals. He contended that the law that applied was the law in existence as at the time the injury was caused and not any law passed subsequently thereafter.
From the record, the writ of summons was taken out on 25/5/93. What was the state of the law then as affecting the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court?. This is contained in section 2 of the Federal High Court Amendment (Decree) now Act No. 60 of 1991 which state as follows:
“2. For section 7 of the Principal Act, there shall be substituted the following new section that is:
7(1) The court shall to the exclusion of any other court have original jurisdiction to try civil causes and matters connected with and pertaining to (P) mines and minerals, including oil fields, oil mining and geological surveys and natural gas.”
What is the meaning of “matters connected with and pertaining to…? ” Careful examination of the phrase seems to imply that the Federal High Court will have jurisdiction on all issues or causes of action – relating to and arising out of the operation of any matter relating in particular to mines and minerals, geological surveys and natural gas. I must quickly add that section 7(1) of No. 60 of 1991 has been reproduced in section 230(1) of Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993. It states as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction to the exclusion to any other court in civil cases and matters arising from (1) arms, ammunition and explosives: mines minerals (including oil, fields mining, geological surveys and natural gas.”
It is considered germane to find out the state of the case law in earlier case. In the case of Barry & Ors v. Obi A. Eric & Ors (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt.562) 404. The Respondent had taken out summons against the plaintiff in the State High Court for damages caused to them by causing migration of bees in the Respondent’s farm during seismic operation. The Appellant in the case applied that the suit be struck out on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the application. On appeal, in the leading judgment Katsina-Alu, J.C.A. (as he then was) said:
“I am persuaded by these amendments that there has been a shift from the old position… It is not in controversy that the cause of action in the present case arose in the course of oil prospecting activities by the Defendant/Appellant. It can be seen clearly therefore that the action falls squarely within the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by Decrees 60 of 1991 and 107 of 1993. That being so, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Judge of the Omoku High Court was in error when he assumed jurisdiction over the matter. Clearly, a state High Court lacks jurisdiction.”
Uwaifo, J.C.A. (as he then was) in that same judgment declared too as follows:
“In the present case, the damage complained of arose from an allegation that during the geological surveys in the oil field some explosives were detonated. It was an oil exploration device and procedure”.
If in the course of that seismic operation in that earlier case the bees in the respondent’s farm were caused to migrate as they claim and they suffered loss for which they claim damages, the Court with jurisdiction is the Federal High. See now section 25(1)(n) of 1999 Constitution. It states:
“notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matter:- mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and natural gas.”
I must hasten to add here that in the present case, we are concerned with the state of the law when the suit was instituted and filed. As at that time the operative law was instituted and filed. As at that time the operative law was Decree No. 16 of 1991.1t is in that Decree that the Federal Government made a shift and expanded the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Federal Revenue Court from that of mainly concerning itself with the Revenue Court to exercising other jurisdictions.
The summary of the claim in this case is that the Appellants should be found liable in damage arising out of injury caused by the Appellants during drilling operation in which the 1st Respondent was involved. In his ruling, the Court below said inter alia:
“I am of the view that there is nothing in their provisions to exclude a claim for personal injury suffered by a person who claims to be an employee of the defendants based on negligence from being laid in a State High Court having regard to the circumstances of the case”.
He was emboldened by the case of Shell Petroleum Development Company (Nig.) Ltd. v. Abel Isaiah & ors (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt.508) 236. In that case, which arose from a claim for damages caused by oil spillage during oil drilling operation, the Court of Appeal per Katsina – Alu stated thus:
“Decree No.107 of 1991 – Although the defendant did not rely on this Decree, it was submitted rightly in my view that it does affect the jurisdiction of the State High Court to adjudicate on this matter. The Decree is inapplicable because the subject matter of the claim in this case did not arise from Mines and Minerals oil fields geological surveys and natural gas”
“The subject matter arose from oil spillage from the defendant’s oil pipelines onto the plaintiff’s swamp land and farm lands.”
Although, this statement appears to be obiter whatever is the case, it would seem that the court shifted ground and gave a more introspective analysis and synthesis in the case of Barry v. Eric supra which is the most recent case any way.
The Respondents had referred to the case having arisen before 1993 that is before the enactment of Decree 107 aforementioned. With greatest respect to that view, I do not know how that is helpful seeing that section 7 of Decree No.60 of 1991 and section 230 of the Decree No.107 of 1993 are also procedural laws. In Rossek v. A.C.B. Ltd (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt.312) 475, the Supreme Court had stated thus:
“On the other hand, procedural law existing at the time of the hearing of a case whether at the trial or on appeal applies to the prosecution and defence of the case. It does not matter whether the procedural law comes into force before or after the cause of action arises or has arisen and whether before or after an appeal is filed or has been filed.”
The injury alleged to have given rise to the action in the court below and subsequently in this court sprang from the performance of the Respondent’s duty as an employee of the Appellant in drilling operation in respect of oil. If the drilling exercise is in respect of water prospecting, any alleged act of negligence will be dealt with in a State High Court. In interpretation of statutes, any word used must be so construed to give proper meaning to the expression without in any way bringing confusion. The expression as appearing in section 7 of Decree No. 60 of 1991 or section 230 of Decree No.107 of 1993 shall be construed in such a way as to understand the purport of that provision. It would in such interpretation show that what is being complained about is connected with and pertaining or relating to activities which have direct bearing to the operation of oil prospecting, seismic survey, and such like activities as equally applying to gas. In a matter arising out of the drilling operations or activities to effectuate an end causes of actions arising from them, would have to be determined in a Federal High Court not in the State High Court. In J. Cooke & Sons Ltd v. Binding (1961) 2 Q.B.200, Section 5(2) of the Debt Act 1869 states:
“For the purposes of this section, any court may direct any debt due from any person in pursuance of any order or judgment of that or as other competent court to be paid by instalments and may from time to time rescind or vary such order.”
It was held that there was ample jurisdiction under the above words of the section to enable a county court judge to increase or reduce the amount of the statement payable according to circumstances existing from time to time. See also Re. Wholesome Confectioners Alliance’s Agreement No. 2 (1961) L.R. 2 RP 231. The courts may expound the powers conferred by the state to give life and true reflection of the intention of the statute without attempting to increase or expand these powers in order to assume wide jurisdiction they are not given.
In my view, the court below erred in assuming jurisdiction in a matter which falls squarely within the province of the Federal High Court. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the order of the lower court assuming jurisdiction and I hereby strike out the claim of the Respondent.
I shall make no Order as to costs.
Other Citations: (2000)LCN/0841(CA)
