Sun Insurance Nigeria Plc V Umez Engineering Construction Company Limited (2015)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MAHMUD MOHAMMED, CJN.

The dispute between the Parties in this appeal started in the year 2000, when on 31/5/2000, the Respondent as Plaintiff took out a writ of Summons which was accompanied by a statement of claim at the High Court of Justice of Imo State at Owerri, claiming the sum of six Million Naira only (N6,000,000.00) being the insured value of the vehicle less 5% and general damages for negligence in respect of the loss of its Toyota Land Cruiser Prado Jeep stolen by armed men at No. 6 Orlu Road, Owerri, Imo State and which vehicle was insured with the Appellant, which was the Defendant at the trial High Court. PAGE| 2 The Defendant now Appellant, without filing statement of defence, after filing memorandum of appearance on 13/11/2000 and in apparent response to the Motion on Notice for Judgment filed by the Plaintiff at the trial Court, came up with a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the case against it in the following terms :- “Take Notice that this Honourable Court shall be moved on Wednesday the 28th day of February 2001 at 9 o’clock in the fore noon or so as Counsel for the Defendant/Applicant shall be heard for an order striking out this suit in its entirely for lack of jurisdiction of this Honourable Court on the grounds stated in the schedule herein :- The Defendant/Applicant shall rely on all Court processes already filed – SCHEDULE 1. The cause of action being an Insurance Policy on the alleged stolen vehicle, the Subject matter is outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. 2. The Civil jurisdiction of this matter now lies with the Federal High Court by virtue of Part XII Insurance Act No. 2 1997.” The facts in support of the Preliminary Objection contained in the affidavit in support, reveals that the Plaintiff insured a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado Jeep in 1998 with the Defendant under an Insurance contract policy cover of third party, fire and theft. It was the case of the Plaintiff on pleadings that the insured vehicle was stolen during the currency of the contract of Insurance on the policy issued to the Defendant. That is to say, the subject of the Plaintiffs claim was based on insurance contract. After giving the parties a hearing on the Preliminary Objection, the learned trial Judge in a considered Ruling delivered on 17/7/2002, dismissed the Defendant’s Objection and held that the High Court of Imo State was vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs action. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Defendant by a Notice of Appeal dated 17/7/2002, the same date the ruling dismissing the Preliminary Objection was given, appealed to the Court of Appeal Port-Harcourt Division against the decision of the trial Court. After hearing the Parties through their respective learned Counsel on the Appellant’s and Respondent’s briefs of argument, the Court of Appeal in a split Judgment of 2 to 1, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial Court that the claims of the Plaintiff/Respondent was within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. That Judgment of the Court PAGE| 3 of Appeal was delivered on 3/5/2007. The Defendant/Appellant was still aggrieved with the Judgment of the Court of Appeal against it and therefore decided to challenge the same through the leave of this Court granted to it on 12/5/2010, resulting in filing a Notice of Appeal containing one ground of appeal giving rise to the sole issue of jurisdiction argued in the Appellant’s brief of argument. The issue which was also adopted by the Respondent in the Respondent’s brief of argument reads – “Whether having regard to Section 251(1) and 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Section 73 and 97 of the Insurance Act No. 2 of 1997, the High Court of Imo State is vested with jurisdiction to entertain this suit.” In support of this issue learned Counsel to the Appellant referred to the statement of claim of the Plaintiff at pages 75 – 78 of the record and restated the law that it is that statement of claim which determines the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Learned Counsel observed that the statement of claim of the Plaintiff before the trial Court shows that the central issue of the Plaintiffs claim was the determination of the rights of the Respondent/Plaintiff under and by virtue of the Insurance contract between the Respondent and the Appellant. After quoting the entire provisions of Section 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and noting that the provisions having started with the words “Notwithstanding” which have been given judicial interpretation in the case of N.D.L.C VS OKEM ENTERPRISES LIMITED (2004) 4 SC (Part. 11) 77 at 111 – 113, learned counsel submitted that where that term is used in a Section of a statute, it is meant to exclude an impinging or impending effect of any other provision of a statute or other subordinate Legislation so that the said Section may fulfill itself. Therefore, the learned Counsel emphasized that the term as used in section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution, no provision of that Constitution shall be capable of undermining the section. Counsel placed further reliance on the case of LADOJA VS. INEC & 30 ORS (2007) 7 SC.99 at 161, in support of the position of the law that Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution which vests the High Court of Imo State with jurisdiction can impede or impinge the provisions of Section 251 of the same Constitution because Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution is subject to the provisions of section 251(1) (a-r) of the same Constitution which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on those matters, on the Federal High Court, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court granted by Section 272 of the Constitution. That the National Assembly having exercised its powers under Section 251 (a-r) to give the Federal High Court additional PAGE| 4 jurisdiction in the Insurance Act No. 2 of 1997, the court below was wrong in holding that the Imo State High Court had jurisdiction in the claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent, the Insurance Act being an existing law by virtue of Section 315 of the 1999 Constitution. Making further reference to Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution which empowered the National Assembly to expand the Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which brought about the Additional jurisdiction – The Supreme Court of Nigeria Act CAP 5.16 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 which expanded the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Act, learned Counsel stressed that the Additional jurisdiction conferred by the National Assembly on the Federal High Court in Sections 73 and 97 of the Insurance Act No. 2 of 1997, was quite in order and therefore urged this Court to allow the appeal and declare that the Imo State High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs/Respondent’s case. For the Respondent, its learned Counsel started by observing that jurisdiction is the legal authority of a Court to adjudicate in a matter which is so fundamental to the determination of a case to the extent that it is regarded as the centre pin on which the entire litigation is hinged on and the blood that gives life to an action as stated by this Court in DINGYADI VS INEC (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt.1255) 347 at 390-391 and NDAEYO VS OGUNAYA (1977) 1 SC. 11. Learned Counsel further pointed out that no matter how well a matter is conducted, if the Court has no jurisdiction, the entire exercise is a nullity. Quoting the provisions of Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution spelling out the jurisdiction of the High Court, Counsel argued that the jurisdiction of High Court as stated in the section is limited only to the subject matters excluded by section 251 of the Constitution and other provisions of the Constitution in Section 254 giving exclusive jurisdiction to National Industrial Court in matters stated therein. Relying on several decisions including TRIUMPH ASSURANCE CO. LTD VS. FADLALLAH SONS LTD. (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt.640) 294 at 301 and C.G.G. (NIG.) LTD VS OGU (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 366 at 381-382 and 385, learned Counsel stressed that in the determination of jurisdiction of a Court, what the law enjoins the Court to look at is the statement of claim of the Plaintiff which in the present case relates to a claim on simple contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured for indemnity and that several of such disputes had been heard and resolved in the High Court as in the case of LEADWAYASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS J.U.C. LTD. (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt.919) 539. Counsel therefore pointed out that there was nothing in Section 251(l)(a) – (s) of the 1999 Constitution which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to hear and determine causes/and/or claims on insurance and simple contract on PAGE| 5 insurance having regard to the case of ADELAKAN VS. ECU-LINE NV (2006)12 NWLR (Pt.993)33 at 52. As for the argument of the Appellant that the Insurance Act of 1997 had vested exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court on Insurance matters, learned Counsel replied that there is nothing in the Insurance Act 1997, to support the argument of the Appellant’s Counsel and therefore urged this Court to resolve the sole issue in this appeal against the Appellant and dismiss the appeal. The single issue arising for determination in this appeal is whether having regard to the provisions of sections 251(l)(a)-(s) and 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Sections 73 and 97 of the Insurance Act No. 2 of 1997, the Court below was right in the majority judgment that the High Court of Justice of Imo State was vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine the Plaintiffs/Respondent’s claim arising from a simple contract of insurance. The Law is indeed well settled as correctly argued by the learned Counsel to the Parties in their respective briefs of argument that jurisdiction of a trial Court is determined by the Plaintiffs claim as endorsed in the writ of summons and the statement of claim. See ADEYEMI VS OPEYORI (1976) 9-10 SC.31; MUSTAPHA VS GOV OF LAGOS STATE (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.58) 539; TUKUR VS GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWWL (Pt.117) 592 and O.H.M.B. VS GARBA (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt.788)538. Thus in the present case, the claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent as earlier stated in this judgment, relates to simple contract insurance claim. Close examination of section 251(l)(a)-(s) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), does not show any where that jurisdiction to entertain a claim based on simple contract of insurance was vested exclusively on the Federal High Court as claimed by the Appellant. That argument therefore does not support the case of the Appellant. As for the argument of the Appellant that additional jurisdiction had been vested on the Federal High Court by the Insurance Act of 1997, section 25 l(s) relied upon by the Appellant reads – “251(1) ……………………… (s) Such other jurisdiction Civil or Criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly.” It is the case of the Appellant that based on the above provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the National Assembly had conferred additional exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court on all civil claims arising from Insurance contract by virtue of Sections 73 and 97 of the PAGE| 6 Insurance Act, 1997. The provisions of sections 73 and 97 of the Insurance Act state – “73 Settlement of claims – (1) Where- (a) Civil proceedings are taken in Court in respect of any claim relating to the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising from the use of a motor vehicle covered by a policy of Insurance; and (b) Judgment is obtained against the person insured; then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of such judgment the sum payable (including costs and interest on such sum) not later than 30 days from the date of delivery of the Judgment.” I am afraid this Section 73 of the Insurance Act, has nothing to do with conferring jurisdiction on the Federal High Court or any Court for that matter and therefore it is not relevant in this case. As for Section 97 of the Act, it is an interpretation section which states – 97 Interpretation. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires – “Court” means Federal High Court.” Looking through the entire provisions of the Act, it is only section 80 that deals with provisions for jurisdiction and prosecution and it states – “80 Jurisdiction and prosecution. (1) An offence under this Act shall, subject to the Rules of Court, be tried in the Federal High Court and reference in this Act to “Court” or “the Court.” Shall be construed Accordingly.” It is quite clear that the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by section 80 of the Insurance Act No. 2 of 1997 is in respect of the trial of all Criminal Offences committed under the Act. No Civil jurisdiction at all has been conferred by the Act on the Federal High Court. The statute is quite plain therefore that it does not confer any exclusive or any jurisdiction at all for that matter on the Federal High to entertain and determine simple claims arising from contract of Insurance between the Parties to that contract. The Courts below were therefore right in their Judgments that by virtue of Section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, jurisdiction to entertain and determine all simple contracts of insurance claims between parties to such contracts remain with the High Courts of the States. PAGE| 7 The law is trite that one of the ingredients for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court include the requirement that the subject matter of the case is within the jurisdiction of the Court and that there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU & ORS VS NKEMDELIM & ORS (1962) 1 All NLR 587 at 594 and SKENCONSULT (NIG.) LTD VS SECONDY UKEY (1981) 1 SC.6. The Respondent having shown that neither section 251(l)(a)-(r) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, nor the provisions of the Insurance Act No. 2 of 1997 by virtue of section 251(l)(s) conferred exclusive or additional jurisdiction to entertain simple claims on Insurance contracts on the Federal High Court, the subject matter of such claims remains under the jurisdiction of the state High Courts under section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution. The law is also well settled that the question of jurisdiction is so fundamental that the adjudicating Court should determine the issue first before embarking on any proceedings for hearing on the merit. See KATTO VS CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) 126. In the final result, the Appellant having failed to show that the subject matter of the case of the Plaintiff/Respondent now pending at the trial Court is outside the jurisdiction of the trial or that the civil jurisdiction of the insurance claim now lies with the Federal High Court by virtue of section 73 and 97 of the Insurance Act No. 2 of 1997, the appeal must fail. This appeal therefore lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall be N100,000.00 costs to the Respondent against the Appellant.

SC. 316/2010