➥ CASE SUMMARY OF:
Felix Onuorah V. Kaduna Refining & Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (SC.293/2000, 11 Feb 2005)
by Branham Chima (LL.B.)
➥ SUBJECT MATTER(S)
Federal High Court jurisdiction.
➥ CASE FACT/HISTORY
The appellant, as plaintiff, commenced this action at the Federal High Court, Kaduna as suit No. FRC/KD/CS/7/96 against the respondent, as defendant. His claim was for: “(a) An order of court declaring the purported price increase/review of the 18 litres empty tins by the defendant from ₦25 to ₦40 with effect from 10/5/93 as not affecting the plaintiff who paid for his own empty tins much earlier than the commencement date of the price increase/review. (b) An order of specific performance directing the defendant to issue/supply the plaintiff the remaining 17,012 pieces of the 18 litres empty tins not later than 30 days from the date of judgment. (c) ₦1,000,000 general damages from the defendant to the plaintiff for the breach of the arrangement/agreement between him and the defendant.” The parties filed their respective pleadings and the trial took place before O. J. Okeke, J. The learned trial Judge delivered his reserved judgment on 1/8/97 in which he granted the declaration sought by the plaintiff in the first leg of his claim and the claim for specific performance sought in the second leg. The claim for damages sought in the third leg of the claim was, however, refused. ₦1,000 was awarded as costs. The defendant was dissatisfied with the judgment and it filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division. A ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court was raised with leave of the Court of Appeal. The parties filed their briefs of argument in the lower court and the issue of jurisdiction of the trial court was the main issue canvassed before the Court of Appeal. The court, in its judgment delivered on 5/6/2000 in suit No. CA/K/215/97 (Coram R. D. Mohammed, Omage and Obadina, JJCA) allowed the appeal on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The judgment and orders of the trial Federal High Court, Kaduna were set aside and an order striking out the plaintiff’s claim was substituted in their place. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal. The present appeal was therefore filed against the said decision.
➥ ISSUE(S)
I. Was the court below right when it held that the Federal High Court, Kaduna had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appellant’s claim?
➥ RESOLUTION(S) OF ISSUES
[APPEAL DISMISSED]
↪️ ISSUE 1: IN RESPONDENT’S FAVOUR.
[THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT CANNOT ENTERTAIN CLAIMS BASED SIMPLE CONTRACT
‘A close examination of the additional jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court in the section and by the 1979 Constitution clearly shows that the court was not conferred with jurisdiction to entertain claims founded on contract as in the instant case. In other words, section 230(1) provides a limitation to the general and all embracing jurisdiction of the State High Court because the items listed under the said section 230(1) can only be determined exclusively by the Federal High Court. All other items not included in the list would therefore, still be within the jurisdiction of the State High Court. In the instant case, since disputes founded on contracts are not among those included in the additional jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court, that court therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s claim. The lower court therefore, acted rightly in its decision that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim: see Seven-up Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Abiola and Sons Bottling Co Ltd. (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt. 730) 469; and Trade Bank PIc. v. Benilux (Nig.) Ltd. (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 825) 416 at 430 and 431.’
‘The question whether the respondent is a subsidiary or agent of the NNPC or not has no role when a consideration of the jurisdiction of the court is being made. This is because, as already stated above, the determining factor the court, which in this case, is one founded on breach of contract.’
PER NIKI TOBI JSC: ‘They all zero on breach of contract and I am in grave difficulty to hold that the Federal High Court is conferred with jurisdiction to hear matter of simple contractual relationship between parties. It is my humble view, that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court does not admit matters of simple contracts between parties and I venture to say such matters are clearly outside the provisions of the enabling Decrees interpreted by the Court of Appeal.’]
.
.
.
✓ DECISION:
‘In the result, there is totally no merit in the appeal. I accordingly, dismiss it with ₦10,000 cost in favour of the respondent.’
➥ FURTHER DICTA:
⦿ DETERMINING FACTOR OF JURISDICTION
It is settled law that jurisdiction of a court is determined by the plaintiff’s claim as endorsed in the writ of summons and statement of claim: see Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; Orthopaedic Hospitals Management Board v. Garba (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt. 788) 538 at 563. Thus, in this case, the appellant’s claim, already set out above, is the one that should be the focus of attention in determining whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is clearly not the rules of court that vest jurisdiction in the court but rather the statute creating the court. Thus, in the instant case, in determining the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and the State High Court, it is the relevant provisions of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic, as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1993 that would be applicable since the appellant’s action was commenced and in fact judgment was delivered before the 1999 Constitution came into force. Section 230(1)(q), (r) and (s) of Decree No. 107 of 1993 which extended the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court also sets out a proviso after subsection(s). It is that: “nothing in the provisions of paragraphs (q), (r), 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 or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.” — Akintan JSC.
➥ LEAD JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY:
Akintan, JSC
➥ APPEARANCES
⦿ FOR THE APPELLANT(S)
⦿ FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
➥ MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
➥ REFERENCED (LEGISLATION)
➥ REFERENCED (CASE)
➥ REFERENCED (OTHERS)
