FHC Has Exclusive Jurisdiction In Civil Matters Involving Federal Agencies

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria holden in Abuja on March 11, 2011, before their Lordships: C. M. Chuwkuma­Eneli, JSC (Presided), John Afolabi Fabiyi, JSC, Olofunlola Oyelola Adekeye, JSC, Suleiman Galadima, JSC, Bode Rhodes-Vivour, JSC (Delivered the lead judgment)

Suit No. Sc. 266/2006

Isaac Obiuweubi                       Appellant

and

Central Bank of Nigeria            Respondent

Facts:

The Appellant was a senior employee of the Respondent Bank. On the August 11,1987, he was put on suspension, and on October 30, 1987, his appointment was terminated.

Aggrieved by the situation, he sued the Respondent at the Lagos High Court. He sought a declaration that the decision to terminate his employment was unlawful, null, and void as it offends the rule of natural justice. He also claimed his entitlements and general damages in the sum of NIOO,OOO against the Respondent bank. The Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim were filed in the Registry of the Lagos High Court on the July 7,1988. The suit was before Fafiade, J (as she then was). Pending before the learned trial judge was a Motion to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Section 3 (3) of Decree No.17 of 1984.

On the April 14, 1989, the learned trial judge ruled that the Lagos High Court had jurisdiction to hear the case and adjourned hearing for the 25th and 26th of October, 1989. Trial never commenced before Fafiade J. Her Lordship retired and on the January 22,1991, the case came before Olugbani, J. (as he then was), for the first time. On the December 15,1993, trial commenced with the Appellant (as Plaintiff) giving evidence. The plaintiff concluded his evidence on the October 8, 1996. No witnesses were taken thereafter. Then on September 23, 2002, the case came before Lufadeju, J. (as she then was), for the first time. Olugbani, J., has since retired.

On the September 23, 2003, both counsel adopted their written addresses on the issue of jurisdiction. Ruling was reserved by Lufadeju, for the October 28, 2003, but subsequently delivered on the December 16, 2003.

The objection to jurisdiction was for an order striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 251 (1), (p) and (r). In a considered ruling delivered on the December 16, 2003, the learned trial judge said in the penultimate paragraph that “By virtue of Section 251 (i) (p) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution, only the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil cases and matters pertaining (among other things) to the administrative action or decision of the Federal Government or any of its agencies”.

And with the above reasoning the learned trial judge ruled that the Lagos High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case and struck it out. The plaintiff (as appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal. The concluding part of the well considered judgment reads:

“In conclusion, I affirm the decision of the lower court in its ruling of December 16, 2003, on the respondent’s Motion on Notice. This appeal therefore fails. Each party to bear its costs”.

Issue:

This appeal is against that judgment. In accordance with Rules of the Court, the appellant filed his brief on the December 7, 2006, while the respondent’s brief filed on the March 19, 2007 was deemed duly filed and served on the July 17, 2010.

The appellant formulated four issues for determination.

They are:

Issue 1:

Whether the Court of Appeal after recanting the provisions of Section 236 (i) of the 1979 Constitution as the applicable law in this action and Section 251 (i), (p) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution respectively was right to hold that the provisions of Section 251 (i) (p) and (r) of the 1999 constitution operated in retrospect to deprive the State High Court of the jurisdiction it competently exercised in 1988 before the amendment that ousted its jurisdiction having regard to the fact that Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution did not contain abatement provision or have retroactive effect.

Issue 2:

Was it open to the Court of Appeal to depart from or derogate from a decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the Orthopaedic Hospitals Management Board v. Garba (2002) 7 SC (Pt. 11) pg. 138 at 148 even when the Court of Appeal held see page 267 268 of the Records.

“The case of OHMB v. Garba (Supra) cited by the appellant is instructive and very remarkable but I fear the appellant is inviting the court to misapply the law was in total disregard to the hallowed principle of stare -decisions.”

Issue 3:

Whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 6 (i) of the Interpretation Act 1990 as to when an enactment expires, lapses or ceases to have effect or is repealed and particularly sub-section (6)(i) (e) of the aforesaid Act in relation to the pending proceedings of the appellant in the Lagos High Court.

Issue 4:

Whether the Court of Appeal was right to hold that Decree No. 107 of 1993 with effect from November 17,1993 operated in retrospect to affect the appellant’s action which was already pending in the Lagos State High Court since 1988 without any provision whatsoever for cases pending in the State High Courts to abate in the said Decree and thereby importing into the Decree No. 107 of 1993 abatement provisions.

Learned counsel for the respondent formulated a sole issue for determination. It reads:

Whether the claimant’s action is caught by the provisions of Section 251 (i) (p) (r) of the 1999 Constitution, notwithstanding its commencement in 1988 before the promulgation of the 1999 Constitution. Let me say straightway that issues formulated by the appellant are at best prolix, of an academic nature and do not address the real grievance in this appeal.

The main issue arising in this appeal is: Whether the High Court of Lagos had jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit which was brought before it by the appellant in view of the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree 107 of 1993 and the 1999 Constitution.

At the hearing of the appeal on the December 16, 2010, Learned counsel for the appellant, Chief J.O. Akpuduro adopted his brief filed on December 7, 2006 and urged this court to allow the appeal. Likewise, K. S. Omosivwe adopted his brief filed on the March 19, 2007, and deemed duly filed on July 7, 2010. He urged us to uphold the decisions of the two courts below and dismiss the appeal.

This is an area of our law that appears difficult. In the course of this judgment I shall examine some judgments of the Supreme Court and make observations which I venture to hope will be of assistance to judges who have the task of applying the law in this difficult area. It should accord it its ordinary and plain meaning. See Mobil v FBIR (1977) 3 SC Page 53, Toriola v Williams (1982) SC page 27. Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution was amended by the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993. The Section as amended, relevant to this appeal reads thus:

Section 251 (i) (P) (q) (r) of the 1999 Constitution is impari materia with the above. The provisions vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court in Civil cases and matters arising from the administration, management and control of the Federal Government and its agencies, the operation and interpretation of the Constitution as it affects the Federal Government and its agencies as well as any action or proceedings for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action decisions by the Federal Government and its agencies.

For the State High Court to have jurisdiction under Decree 107 of 1993, the cause of action must arise before the 17th of November, 1993, and the trial must also be in progress before the said date. That is to say all part heard cases in the State High Court before November 17, 1993 can continue after 17/11/93 in the State High Court because Decree 107 of 1993 does not have retrospective operation, and in view of Section 6(i) of the Interpretation Act Cap. 192 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990. See: OHMB v Garba (2002) 7 SC (Part 11) page 138.

For the Federal High Court to have jurisdiction the suit must be filed on or after November 17, 1993. All cases filed in the state High Court before November 17, 1993 but in which trial had not commenced as at November 17,1993 shall be heard by the Federal High Court. See Olutola v Unilorin (2004) 18 NWLR (Part 905) page 416, Osakue v FCE (2010) 2-3 SC (Part Ill) page 158.

In this case, the appellant’s cause of action arose on October 30, 1987 when his appointment was terminated by the respondent. The appellant sued the respondent at the Lagos High Court in 1988. As at today, 23 years thereafter trial has not commenced in the State High Court. Legislation applicable to the cause of action and that applicable to the jurisdiction of the Court in his case are so obviously different. When this case would eventually be heard the State High Court would have been arrested of jurisdiction.

For the purpose of clarity, I must restate that this suit is against the Central Bank, a Federal Government Agency.

The Central Bank terminated the Appellant’s employment that act is an administrative action by the Central Bank.

The appellant’s action is for declaration affecting the validity of an administrative decision of the Central Bank. It falls within the warm embrace of Section 251 (i) (r), provisions In pari materia with Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution as amended by the Constitution (suspension and modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993.

Now, the appellant’s cause of action arose in 1987. If trial commenced before November 17, 1993 the State High Court would have jurisdiction if even trial continued after November 17, 1993. On the other hand since trial has not yet commenced, since trial is to start de novo, it is the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction to hear the case. Furthermore since the case would commence after the 1999 Constitution came into force it is the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit, in view of the provisions of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution.

Finally, I must observe that both courts below found that the proper Court vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine the appellant’s case is the Federal High Court.

Both courts below are correct. Trial in the State High Court had not commenced before Decree 107 of 1993 came into force in 1993. In fact, 23 years thereafter (i.e. 2011) trial has still not commenced in any court.

Learned counsel for the appellant would do well to pursue the claims of his client in the substantive suit- his entitlements, instead of putting his client through the harrowing experience for 23 years to decide which court as between the State High Court and the Federal High Court is the correct court to hear his case.

This appeal has no redeeming features. It is hereby dismissed. No order on costs .

• Counsels: Chief J: O. Akpuduro, for the appellant. K. S. Omosivwe, for the respondent.

Culled from The Punch