Facts
The Appellant instituted the action at the High Court of Benin, sitting at Asaba, seeking amongst other reliefs, the sum of N75,194,886.13 (Seventy Five Million, One Hundred and Ninety Four Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Six Naira, Thirteen Kobo) being special and general damages due and payable as compensation in accordance with the provision of the Oil Pipeline Act 1990, for the acquisition of the Appellant’s Land for the construction of oil pipeline. The Appellant equally sought a declaration that the Appellant is the proper person entitled to claim from the Defendant all money(s) due and payable as compensation, for the brazen act of trespass on the said land for the purpose of operating an Oil Pipeline access by virtue of Oil Prospecting, Oil exploration licenses granted to the Respondent without the consent of the Appellant. In proof of his case, the Appellant called four witnesses and tendered several documents which were admitted in evidence as exhibits. The Respondent called one witness who testified on its behalf. At the conclusion of trial, the court delivered its judgement in favour of the Appellant.
Dissatisfied, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the Appeal, holding that the Appellant’s action relates to title to land, and the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the suit. Thereafter, the Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue for Determination
The Supreme Court adopted the sole issue distilled by the Appellant for the determination of the appeal, thus:
“Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the appellant’s action before the trial court deals with, relates to and raises the issues of title to land over which the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain.”
Arguments
For the Appellant, it was strenuously argued that the Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that the trial court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s action on the ground that the claim raised issues relating to title to land. The Appellant submitted that a careful examination of the Writ of Summons, the reliefs sought, and the pleadings exchanged between the parties clearly shows that the action did not involve any dispute as to title to land, nor did it concern a claim for compensation arising from acquisition of land under the Land Use Act. He contended that the principal claim of the Appellant was for damages arising from the construction, operation, and maintenance of oil pipelines by the Respondent across the Appellant’s land, and not a claim for declaration of title to land. Relying on Section 251(1)(n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Section 7(1)(n) of the Federal High Court Act, he argued that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain actions for compensation relating to land where the radical title is not in dispute. In this case, it is not in dispute that in the course of the Respondent’s construction and laying of oil pipelines across the Appellant’s family land for the transportation of crude oil from its flow station to its terminal, various damage was occasioned thereby. These included the desecration of the Appellant’s family shrines, ancestral burial grounds and graves, as well as the destruction of several economic trees. The Appellant contended that the Justices of the Court of Appeal confined themselves to Section 251(1)(n) of the Constitution without considering Section 7(3) of the Federal High Court Act, 2004, which confers additional jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. He posited that in the exercise of its jurisdiction over civil causes and matters relating to mines and minerals, including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys, and natural gas, the Federal High Court is also competent to determine ancillary questions relating to the identity of the person or persons entitled to compensation for land affected by the operations of a holder of an Oil Mining Lease or Licence under the Petroleum Drilling and Production Regulations No. 69 of 1969.
Responding to the submissions, the Respondent argued that the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s suit as it relates to ownership of land and trespass, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. That courts are creations of statute and derive their jurisdiction from the statutes establishing them; and as such, jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the courts themselves but only by the legislature. The Respondent posited that Section 251(1)(n) of the Constitution, does not confer the Federal High Court with jurisdiction to make declarations relating to title to land or to determine issues of ownership and trespass to land. That a careful examination of the reliefs endorsed on the Appellant’s claim before the trial court shows that the appropriate court with jurisdiction to entertain the action is the State High Court and not the Federal High Court. Counsel submitted that contrary to the Appellant’s argument, the Federal High Court Act has not expanded the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution. The courts are not permitted to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court beyond the provisions of Section 251(1)(n) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). He, therefore, urged the Court to discountenance the submissions of the Appellant relating to jurisdiction over matters concerning mines and minerals.
