Seismograph Services Nig. Ltd. V. Michael Oshie & Ors. (2008)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME (Ph.D), J.C.A:
This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Justice Delta State, delivered by Justice I. E. Ogbodu sitting at Ogwashi-Uku, which Judgment was delivered on the 8th of March 2000.
The action was instituted at High Court Oleh Delta State, upon the transfer of the Judge to Orerokpe High Court, the trial Judge continued with the Case following an assignment order from the Chief Judge of the State. Judgment was finally delivered while the Judge was sitting at Ugwashi-Uku High Court.
The Respondents at the trial Court filed a claim against the Appellant in their further amended Statement of Claim, claiming as follows:
The sum of N1,648,270:00 as fair and adequate compensation or as per their writ of summons or In the alternative, the sum of N1,308,270:00 for the Juju shrines, loss of earnings from shrines and crops and economic trees and an order of the Honourable court directing the Defendant to repair, reseal or rehabilitate the plaintiffs, aforesaid two private roads to the plaintiffs satisfaction.
The Appellant is a Seismic/Geophysical Limited Liability Company that carries out Seismic Surveys of oil blocks and gathers seismic data in search of hydrocarbon reserves. The Cause of action arose out of the Seismic activities of the Appellant at Ellu/Ovode bush in Ellu town in Isoko North Local Government Area of Delta State which Seismic activities of the Appellant was said to have destroyed, desecrated and polluted the Respondents’ crops, farm land, Juju shrines, two private roads among others.
The Appellant denied all the allegations contained in the Claim of the Respondents by its amended statement of defence.
The Court delivered its Judgment on the 8th of March 2000 in favour of the Respondents, and awarded the Sum of One Million, Six Hundred and forty-Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Seventy Naira (N1,648,270:00) as fair and adequate compensation for damages allegedly caused to the Respondents’ properties by the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court, the Appellant now appealed to this Court on Four grounds of appeal but later abandoned grounds 2 and 3. The said grounds which is contained in their notice and grounds of Appeal without their particulars read:
GROUND 1:
The learned trial Judge failed to draw a distinction between the Law applicable to a Cause of action and the Law applicable to the issue of jurisdiction.
GROUND 2:
The learned trial Judge erred in law when he excluded and or failed to evaluate the evidence of DW2 and DW3.
GROUND 3:
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself upon the facts when he concluded that the Defendant/Appellant called only one witness.
GROUND 4:
The learned trial Judge misdirected himself in Law when he admitted and relied on Exhibit 3 (Evaluation report dated 4/4/97) when Exhibit 3 was clearly inadmissible in Law.
Both parties filed their briefs of argument. The Appellant raised One issue for determination which the Respondent adopted, it read;
Whether in the light of the provisions of Decree No.60 1991, Decree No.107, 1993 and the 1999 Constitution, the trial Court was right to have assumed jurisdiction to determine this suit. (Ground 1)
On the only issue for determination, the Appellant had argued that as at the time the writ of summons and the statement of claim of the Respondents were filed on the 23rd April 1993, and 2nd February, 1994 respectively, the trial Court was already divested of its jurisdiction to try and determine “Civil Causes and matters connected with or pertaining to mines and minerals, including oil fields, oil mining, geological Surveys and natural Gas” as provided for under section 7(1) (P) of the Federal High Court (amendment) Decree No.60 of 1991, and Section 230(1) (0) of the Constitution (suspension and modification) Decree No.107 of 1993 which were the existing laws at the material time.
He argued further that at the time the Respondents filed their statement of claim and the period the trial court assumed jurisdiction, despite the fact that the issue of jurisdiction was raised at the trial court, that the court had already been divested of its jurisdiction by Virtue of Section 7(1) (P) of Decree No.107 of 1993 which amended the provisions of section 230 (1) of the 1979 constitution.
Counsel submitted that if on the other hand the Judgment is said to have been delivered on the 8th of March 2000 i.e. after the 1999 Constitution, of Nigeria had come into effect, that Section 251(1) (n) also divested the trial Court of its jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He Cited SPDC LTD. V. BUKUMA FISHERMEN SOCIETY LTD (2001) F.W.L.R. PT. 70 PAGE 150.
C.G.G. NIGERIA LTD. V. ASAAGBARA (2000) F.W.L.R. PT. 17 PAGE 110 AT 119.
SPDC LTD V. ISAIAH (2001) F.W.L.R. PT. 56 PAGE 608 AT 622.
In his reply to the foregoing argument on this sole issue, the respondents contended that since the law applicable is the one existing at the time the Cause of action arose, that neither Decree 60 of 1991, nor the present 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria could be said to have affected the Respondents’ Claim. He argued that it is the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which Conferred unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court that controlled the case of the Respondents. That the High Court Oleh, Delta State had jurisdiction since the said 1979 Constitution was the operative law at the time the Cause of action accrued. He submitted further that since the Cause of action arose in July 1991 before Decree No. 60 of 1991 was promulgated, and since the writ of summons and statement of claim were filed on the 23rd of April 1993, Decree No.60 of 1991 which commenced on 30th December 1991 had been suspended by Decree No.60 of 1992 and the Suspension was only lifted on 26th August 1993, that the 1979 Constitution which vests the High Court with Unlimited jurisdiction was undisputedly the operative law. He referred the Court to the following authorities:
JOSHUA ALAO V. GBADAMOSI AKANO (1988) 1 NWLR PT. 71 at Page 431
UWAIFO V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE (1982) 7 SC Page 124.
He urged the Court to hold that the High Court of Delta State had the jurisdiction to try the case and to resolve the only issue for determination in favour of the Respondents.
In resolving the only issue for determination, which issue bothers on jurisdiction, it must be noted that the Respondents filed their writ of Summons and statement of Claim on the 23rd of April 1993, and 2nd February 1994 respectively.
The Law is that it is the plaintiffs’ statement of claim, (in this case, the Respondents) that determine whether the trial Court have jurisdiction or not. See the case of TUKUR v. GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 N.W.L.R. PT. 117 Page 549.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V. GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD. (2001) F.W.L.R. PT. 32 Page 32 at 87.
A close look at the Respondents’ further Amended statement of claim, particularly paragraphs 2, 7, 8a – e, 9, 10 and 17 show that the cause of action arose from the cutting of “Seismic lines”
by the Appellants in the Respondents’ village. Cutting of Seismic lines could be likened to carrying out geological Surveys. It is therefore caught by Section 7(1) (P) of Decree NO.60 of 1991 and Section 230 (1) (o) of Decree No.107 of 1993 which amended the provisions of Section 230 (1) of the 1979 Constitution.
Section 7 (6) of Decree No.60 of 1991 states as follows:
… “Any decision made after the commencement of this section by any court of law in any purported exercise of any power under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or of any Federal or State Law shall, as from the date of making of the decision Be null and void …. ”
Even though the Judgment was delivered on the 8th of March 2000, the day of the delivery of the Judgment is not relevant as far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned. Even at that, Section 251 (1) (n) of the 1999 Constitution also divests the High Court of the Jurisdiction to hear and determine the Suit.
Although from the statement of Claim, the Cause of action arose before the promulgation of Decree 107 of 1993, the hearing of the Suit had commenced and was still pending when the said Decree 107 of 1993 was Signed into law. From the moment the said Decree was Signed into Law, the Jurisdiction of the State High Court to determine any matter connected with or pertaining to mining and minerals, including oil fields, oil mining, geological Surveys and natural gas was ousted.
It is my humble view that the Cause of action arose from an oil field or an oil location, and that Decree 107 of 1993 among others ousted the jurisdiction of the State High Court. Delta State High Court inclusive to hear and determine the Suit. Once the jurisdiction of a Court is ousted, it becomes immaterial that the trial court arrived at a just decision.
In the circumstance, it is my humble view that the learned trial Judge of the High Court of Delta State was wrong in assuming jurisdiction, proceeded to hear and determined the case. I therefore agree with the Submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant in his brief of argument that the Delta State High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter which matter was connected with or pertaining to mining and minerals, including oil fields, oil mining, geological Survey and natural Gas, when he had no jurisdiction.
The Sole issue for determination in this Appeal is resolved in favour of the Appellant. The grounds of appeal to which this sole issue relates, succeed.
In the final result, and for all the reasons given above, this appeal succeeds, and is hereby allowed.
The Judgment of the lower court awarding the sum of One Million, Six Hundred and Forty Eight thousand, Two Hundred and Seventy Naira (N1,648,270:00) as fair and adequate compensation for the damages caused to the Respondents’ properties by the Appellant is hereby set aside.
It is hereby ordered that this case be sent to the Federal High Court for hearing and determination.
I make no order as to Costs.
Other Citations: (2008)LCN/3024(CA)
