A-G. OF FEDERATION V. A-G. OF IMO STATE & ORS.
| Pages | 567-585 |
A-G., FEDERATION V. A-G., IMO STATE & ORS.
567
There is no such miscarriage of justice in this case and the second ground of
appeal fails.
Appeal dismissed.
5
A-G., FEDERATION V. A-G., IMO STATE & ORS.
10
THE A-G., FEDERATION
V
THE A-G. OF IMO STATE
THE A-G. OF ONDO STATE
15 THE A-G. OF LAGOS STATE
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
FATAI-WILLIAMS, C.J.N.
SOWEMIMO,
J.S.C.
20
IRIKEFE,
J.S.C.
BELLO,
J.S.C.
IDIGBE,
J.S.C.
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
ESO,
J.S.C.
25
17th December, 1982
PLAINTIFF
DEFENDANTS
SUIT NO. SC 88/1982
Constitutional Law - Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court - Limited to justiciable
disputes between the Federation and a state - Actions instituted in 3 State
High Courts against Federal Electoral Commission - Declaration that State High
30
Court has no original jurisdiction to entertain legal proceedings involving disputes
between the commission or executive branch of Federal Government and others
Words and Phrases - Interpretation of statutes - Need to interpret "state" in
35
manner giving effect and purpose for which the court created.
ISSUES:
1. Whether State High Courts have jurisdiction to entertain matters involving
disputes between the Federal Government and other persons.
40
2. What is the limit of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to entertain action
between the Federal and State Governments pursuant to Section 212(1) of the
1979 Constitution.
3. Whether wrongful assumption of jurisdiction over a matter of public right in any
suit filed by a private party, by the High Court of a State constitutes "dispute"
45
within the purview of Section 212(1) which will entitle the Federal Attorney
General to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
FACTS:
This action arose out of three actions filed almost simultaneously during the
registration of voters exercise being carried out by the Federal Electoral Corn-
50
mission in 1982. In Imo State, the Attorney General of Imo State commenced pro-
ceedings in the High Court of Imo State against the Commission and the Resident
Commissioner, Imo State seeking certain declaration, orders and an injunction.
On the same day, two members of the Ondo State House of Assembly filed orig-
inating summons in the High Court of Ondo State against the Commission and its
568
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1982] N.S.C.C.
Resident Commissioner also seeking certain declarations orders and injunction.
Again, in the High Court of Lagos State the Lagos State Legislator filed suit against
the Commission, the Attorney General of the Federation and the Resident Com-
missioner, Lagos State claiming similar reliefs.
By reason of the foregoing premises, the Attorney General of the Federation
5
as plaintiff instituted these proceedings as the representative of the Executive
branch of the Federal Government claiming against the Attorney-General of Imo
State, Ondo and Lagos State, as defendant jointly and severally and as repre-
sentatives of the Executive and Judicial Branches of their respective Governments,
a number of declarations. He also asked for an order of prohibition against all the
10
Court of law in each of the three States from taking certain steps in respect of the
matter set forth therein, and also for an injunction retraining all law enforcement
agencies in each of three States from enforcing or taking any of the orders referred
to in the said proceedings. The Attorney General sought to invoke the original juris-
diction of the Supreme Court for the trial of the action as being a matter within
15
scope of that jurisdiction as prescribed in Section 212(1) of the Constitution. The
defendants raised a preliminary objection
in limine
contending that the matter was
not one that came within the scope of Section 212(1) of the Constitution in that the
matter was not, as provided for in Section 212(1), a dispute between the Feder-
ation and a State involving a question on which the existence or extent of a legal
20
right depended.
HELD:
1.
State High Courts have jurisdiction to entertain matters involving disputes
between the Federal Government and other persons.
2.
The Federal Government has a right to invoke the original jurisdiction of the
25
Supreme Court under Section 212(1) of the Constitution of 1979 if it can be
shown that there is a justiciable dispute between it and a State, and that the
dispute involves a legal right of the Federation. It is clear that in none of the
claim in three suits in the High Courts of Imo, Ondo and Lagos States was any
question, whether of law or fact, raised as to constitute any dispute between
30
the Feceration and any State within the context of Section 212(1). The dispute
in the case of Imo State was between the Attorney-General of that State on
behalf of the citizens of Imo State ( and not as the representative of Imo State)
and the Electoral Commission while the dispute in Ondo and Lagos State were
between private persons and the Commission. Further, the dispute in all three
35
States centre on the Constitutional rights of every qualified citizen to be
registered in the register of votes. No legal right of the Federation or of any
State was involved in any of the suits.
3.
It is stretching the meaning of the word ''dispute' to contend that mere wrongful
assumption of jurisdiction over a matter of public right, in any suit filed by a
40
private party, by the High Court of a State constitutes ''dispute'' which will entitle
the Attorney-General of the Federation to invoke the original jurisdiction of this
Court. The remedy for wrongful exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court of a
State has been amply provided by the Constitution - An appeal to the Federal
Court cf Appeal - Sections 219 to 222 of the Constitution and thence to this
45
Court - Section 213.
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:
1.
Pierce v. Superior Court
96 ALR 1020.
2.
Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers
50
3.
Att-Gen. New South Wales v. The Brewery Employees Union
469, 550-551.
4.
Att-Gen. Bendel State v. Att-Gen. Federation & 22 ors
(1981) 10 SC 1.
5.
Att-Gen. Eastern Nigeria v. Att-Gen. Federation
(1964) 1 All NLR 224.
To continue reading
Request your trial