Latest COA Cases On The Conditions For The Justiciability Of An Action Against An Agent Of The Federal Government Under Section 251 Of The 1999 Constitution Of The Federal Republic Of Nigeria

CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA V MAIYINI CENTURY COMPANY LTD & ANOR

Appeal no: CA/YL/76/2016

AREAS OF LAW:
ACTION, APPEAL, COURT, GARNISHEE PROCEEDING, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Plaintiff/1st Respondent took a writ of summons under the undefended procedure against the Defendant/2nd Respondent claiming the sum of N504,400.00 being the principal sum of N155,200.00 and interests at the rate of 25%, in that on the 17th day of November, 1997, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant through its "B" Defendant, (Mounted) with 192 bags of grain (Wheat and Guinea Corn), 12 buckets and 12 head pans at the total costs of N202,200.00 as requested by the Defendant through various local purchase orders on the condition that payment of the contract sum would be made within 7 days after supplies, and in default attract 25% from the date it becomes due till liquidation.

The Defendant made a part payment of N47, 000.00 to the Plaintiff leaving a balance of N155, 200.00 together with the accumulated interest of N349, 200.00 as at September, 1998, which sum the Defendant has failed to pay despite repeated demands by the Plaintiff, 25% interest on the principal sum of N155, 200.00 from October, 1998 till date, and 10% interest on the whole sum from the date of judgment until the final liquidation of the judgment debt. By an "Admission by Agreement" dated 12th October, 2000 pursuant to Section 74 of the Evidence Act and Order 29 Rule 3 of the Adamawa State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, the parties agreed to settle amicably.

The trial court entered judgement in favour of the 1st Respondent as per the terms of the Agreement against the 2nd Respondent.

The 2nd Respondent yet failed to pay up the judgement sum due to the 1st Respondent, hence, the 1st Respondent commenced garnishee proceedings  against the Appellant to attach the said judgement sum or any part of it in the 2nd Respondent's account with the Appellant.

The trial court granted the garnishee order nisi and ordered the garnishee to appear to show cause why the Order Nisi should not be made absolute on the return date.

The Appellant however, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection against the entire garnishee proceedings on grounds that the order of the court made on the 29th day of January, 2016 consequent upon the Judgment Creditor/Applicant's application is without jurisdiction, that the Garnishee is a Federal Agency which can only be sued at the Federal High Court amongst other grounds.

The court in its ruling dismissed the preliminary objection and made the Garnishee Order Nisi, Absolute. Dissatisfied by the trial court's ruling, the Appellant has filed this appeal contending that pursuant to Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution, jurisdiction is restricted to the Federal High Court in matters connected with banking relationships and where the Central Bank of Nigeria is a party.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Ø  Whether the garnishee proceedings against the Appellant at the trial State High Court was properly constituted in view of the provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)?

Ø  Whether the provisions of Section 84 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is applicable in this case?

RATIONES

JURISDICTION OF COURT - FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT

"It is a time honoured principle of law that the jurisdiction of a court to hear a matter or lack of it is a threshold issue and has the character of assuming the focal position in all litigations. The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time whether it was pleaded or not. It can be raised by the court "suo motu" and even on appeal as in the instant appeal. It is very fundamental. What it involves is, what will enable a plaintiff to seek a hearing in court over his grievance, and get it resolved because he is able to show that the court is empowered to entertain the subject-matter". PER O.F.OMOLEYE, J.C.A

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION - INGREDIENTS THAT DETERMINES THE COMPETENCE OF A COURT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN A MATTER

"Much judicial prominence has been given to the importance of jurisdiction. Hence, the law is well settled that, a court is only competent to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any matter where:-

(a)        It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualification of the members and qualification of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other,

(b)        The subject-matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction and

(c)        The case comes by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.

The law is equally well established that all the above reiterated determinants of jurisdiction co-exist and are conjunctive. See amongst an array of judicial authorities the cases of: (1) Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2SCNLR p.341; (2) A.-G., Anambra State v. A.-G., Federation (1993) 6NWLR (Pt.302) p.892 and (3) Nwankwo v. Yar'adua (2010) 12NWLR (Pt.1209) p.518". PER O.F.OMOLEYE, J.C.A

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT - EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

"The Federal High Court derives its jurisdiction under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. On the contrary, the State High Court is a court of unlimited jurisdiction. However, the Federal High Court is a special court with circumscribed jurisdiction which is clearly specified under Section 251 of the Constitution. This means that the Federal High Court can only adjudicate on the matters specified in Section 251 of the Constitution where the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party. See the cases of: (1) Omosowan v. Chiedozie (1998) 9NWLR (Pt.566) p.477 and (2) Minister of Works & Housing v. Tomas Nig. Ltd. (2002) 2NWLR (Pt.752) p.40." PER O.F.OMOLEYE, J.C.A

JURISDICTION OF COURTS - DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURTS

"It is a cardinal principle of our jurisprudence that in determining whether a court has jurisdiction or not, it is the claims of the plaintiff that must be considered, as the jurisdiction of any court to adjudicate upon a matter depends on the claim before it. See the cases of: (1) F.M.B. v. Uwadiale (2004) 10NWLR (Pt.882) p.625; (2) Tukur v. Govt. of Taraba State (1997) 6NWLR (Pt.510) p.549 and (3) S.P.D.C.N. v. Maxon (2001) FWLR (Pt.49) p.1030. "Agencies" of the Federal Government have been held to cover all the organs established by law through which the Federal Government carries out its functions- See the case of: University of Abuja v. Ologe (1996) 4NWLR (Pt 445) p.706". PER O.F.OMOLEYE, J.C.A

CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION - DUTY OF COURTS IN CONSTRUING SECTION 230(1) OF THE 1979 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

"In the case of: NEPA v. Edegbero (2002) 18NWLR (Pt.798) p.79 at p.100, paras. D-G, Tobi JSC (of blessed memory) while considering Section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution which is in "pari materia" with Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution held as follows:- 

In construing Section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended, two important matters arise. They are: the Parties in the litigation as well as the subject-matter of the litigation. The court must consider both. In construing the parties; the court will have no difficulty in identifying the agency of the Federal Government in certain matters. The case law and the law of agency will certainly be of help in relevant cases……..Another important area is the subject-matter of the litigation. In my view, for the Federal High Court to have exclusive jurisdiction, the matter must be a civil matter arising from the administration, management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. The matter must arise from the operation and interpretation of the Constitution. And finally, the matter must arise from any action or proceedings for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decisions by the Federal Government or any of its agencies. (the underlining is supplied by me for emphasis).

-          PER O.F.OMOLEYE, J.C.A

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT - CONDITIONS FOR THE JUSTICIABILITY OF AN ACTION AGAINST AN AGENT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER SECTION 251 OF 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA

"Furthermore in the case of: Minister of Works & Housing v. Tomas Nig. Ltd. (2002) 2NWLR (Pt.751) p.740 at p.788, paras. E-G, the Apex Court held that:

There is nowhere in the Constitution or any other enactment where it is stipulated that any suit in which the Federal Government Ministry, Agency, Functionary or Parastatal is sued, is justiciable in the Federal High Court except those cases specified in Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. An action against an agent of the Federal Government may not be justiciable under Section 251 of 1999 Constitution unless it is as regards the administration or management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies or for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision. (The underlining is supplied by me for emphasis).

-          PER O.F.OMOLEYE, J.C.A

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT - WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN ACTION ON SIMPLE CONTRACT

"In the case of: Federal College of Education (Special) Oyo v. Chief Akin Akinyemi (2007) LPELR-8482 (CA), Okoro, JCA (as he then was now JSC), also had the following to say on this subject, to wit:-

The claim before the Federal High Court in the instant case, which I had earlier set down in the course of this judgment is a claim for payment of professional fees over a contract of valuation of assets of the Appellant by the Respondent. I have read Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and I have not seen where it is stated or suggested that the Federal High Court is empowered or has jurisdiction to entertain action on simple contract or debt recovery notwithstanding the fact that the Appellant is an agency of the Federal Government………………

The court held that Section 230(1) of 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as amended by Decree No. 107 of 1992 which is in "pari materia" with Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution, does not confer the Federal High Court with jurisdiction over matters of simple contract. See Felix Onuorah v. Kaduna Refining & Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (2005) 6NWLR (Pt.921) 393 at 405, Seven-up Bottling Co. v. Abiola & Sons Ltd. (2001) 13NWLR (Pt.730) 469, Trade Bank Plc. V. Beniflux (Nig.) Ltd. (2003) 9NWLR (Pt.825) 416. (The underlining is supplied by me for emphasis).

See also the case of: Oil & Gas Export Fre Zone Authority v. Dr. T. C. Osanakpo (SAN) (2009) LPELP – 8504 (CA). PER O.F.OMOLEYE, J.C.A

JURISDICTION OF A COURT - DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT

"On the subject of how to determine the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a matter in which a Federal Government agency is a party, this Court per Ogbuinya, JCA eloquently had the following to say in the case of: The Government of Kwara State & Ors. V. Irepodun Block Manufacturing Company & Ors. (2012) LPELR – 8532 (CA), to wit:

It is not in doubt that the applicant is a Federal Government agency by virtue of the provisions of Sections 1 and 7 of the Nigerian Meteorological (Establishment) Act, Cap. N152, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Be that as it may, I must, without much ado, place on record that the respondent's view point on this point is as sweeping as it is parochial. This is because the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a matter in which a Federal Government agency is a party, has two dimensional facets. In this wise, where a Federal Government agency is a party to a proceeding, a court is mandated to look at both party and subject-matter jurisdictional aspects of it. That is to say, a court had to, in addition to a party being a Federal Government agency, examine the facts of a matter with a view to determining the subject-matter of it. If the "res" comes within the jurisdictional provisions under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, then the Federal High Court will have, exclusive jurisdiction where the party is a Federal Government agency, where, however, the subject-matter falls outside the precincts of those provisions, then a State High Court will be vested with jurisdiction notwithstanding that the party involved is a Federal Government agency. The Supreme Court has set a seal on this grey and nagging area of law in the case of Obiuwenbi v. CBN (2011) 7NWLR (Pt.1247) 465. The rationale behind this cardinal principle of law is underpinned by the fact that one of the triumvirate ingredients of jurisdiction is that the subject-matter of a case must come within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating court and there is no feature therein which will prevent it, the court, from exercising its jurisdiction, seeMadukolu vs. Nkemdilim (1991) 2NSCC 374; Agbiti vs. Nigerian Navy (2011) 4NWLR (Pt.146) 175; SLB Consortium Ltd. Vs. N.N.P.C. (2011) 9NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317. (The underlining is supplied by me for emphasis).

-          PER O.F.OMOLEYE, J.C.A

GARNISHEE PROCEEDING - NATURE OF GARNISHEE PROCEEDING

"Garnishee proceeding is a specie of the enforcement of debts for which the ordinary administrative methods of enforcement are inapplicable and it is judicial in nature".PER O.F.OMOLEYE, J.C.A

DETERMINANTS OF JURISDICTION - EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE DETERMINANTS OF JURISDICTION

"As I stated earlier on above in this judgment, all the determinants of jurisdiction are conjunctive in their operation. It follows that non-compliance with any of them is a defect in competence which is extrinsic to adjudication, thereby rendering the proceedings already embarked upon a nullity. See the cases of: (1) Skenconsult (Nig.) Ltd. V. Ukey (1981) 1SC p.6; (2) Leedo Presidential Motel v. B. O. N. Ltd. (1998) 10NWLR (Pt.570) p.353; (3) Sofolahan v. Fowler (2002) All FWLR (Pt.108) p.1521; (4) Shelim v. Gobang (2009) All FWLR (Pt.496) p.1866 and (5) Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (supra)". PER O.F.OMOLEYE, J.C.A

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Adamawa State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) 1999

Evidence Act

Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap S6, the Revised Edition (Laws of the Federation of Nigeria) Act, 2004