ONYEAMA & ORS V. OPUTA & ORS.

• Pages: 900-930

900



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1987] 2 N.S.C.C.

ONYEAMA & ORS V. OPUTA & ORS.



5

EMMANUEL ONYEAMA & ORS



APPELLANTS

V

UWAEZE OPUTA & ORS



RESPONDENTS



1(

SUIT NO. SC 20

3

/

1

985

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BELLO,



C.J.N.

ESO,



J.S.C.

ANIAGOLU,



J.S.C.



lf.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

KAZEEM,



J.S.C.

OPUTA,



J.S.C.

BELGORE,



J.S.C.

26th June, 1987



2C

Constitutional Law - Interpretation Act, 1964, applicable in interpreting 1979

Constitution - S.277(4), 1979 Constitution - Interpretation of S.275, 1979

Constitution, in relation to courts - Cows.

25

Jurisdiction - Proceedings pending in court before Decree 17 of 1977 are saved

- Territorial jurisdiction of State High Court; ss.3 and 6, 1979 Constitution -

Unlimited jurisdiction in civil proceedings granted to State High Courts -

Jurisdiction covers matter filed before or after 1st October, 1979 - Jurisdiction

of court where challenged to be resolved before hearing suit - Submission to



30

courts jurisdiction confers no jurisdiction on court.

Legislation - Scope of S.6, Interpretation Act, 1964 - Effect of coming into force

of 1979 Constitution on Decree 17 of 1977.

35

ISSUES:

1.

Whether the States (Creation and Transitional Provisions) Act of 1977 was still

in operation on the 1st October, 1979, when the 1979 Constitution came into

force so as to preserve the jurisdiction of a state High Court over land which

has been made point of another state.



40

2.

Whether the 1979 Constitution by its coming into force gave both legal power

and territorial jurisdiction to each State High Court only in respect of matters

filed on or after 1st October, 1979.

3.

What must a court do when faced with an issue of jurisdiction over the suit

before it?



45

FACTS:

The plaintiffs in 1973 sued the present appellants in the Ughelli High Court for

trespass and an injunction in respect of certain land situated in Ndoni Area. Prior

to 3/2/76 the land was in the Mid-western State (now Bendel State since 3/2/76)

but from then, in Rivers State. Before hearing commenced, the case was trans-



5C

ferred to the Kwale High Court, a new judicial division in which the land in dispute

now lay. On 18/6/80 the Chief Judge of Bendel State again transferred the suit to

the Asaba High Court. When hearing commenced in 1981 in Asaba, defence coun-

sel objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that the disputed land

ONYEAMA & ORS V. OPUTA & ORS.



901

was not

in

Bendel State but Rivers State and accordingly asked for a transfer of

the suit to Rivers State High Court. The trial judge gave no ruling on the objec-

tion, but proceeded to hear the whole case and overruled the objection in his judg-

ment holding that he had jurisdiction because of the provisions of s.4(1) of the

5



State (Creation and Transitional Provisions) Act, No. 17 of 1977 which according

to him saved the pendency of the action as it is not a matter in which a state gov-

ernment is a party which is to be transferred by virtue of s.3 of the Act. The ap-

pellants unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal and further appealed to

the Supreme Court.

10

HELD:

1.

Section 4(1) of Decree No. 17 of 1977 saved these proceedings pending and

deemed them to be pending in the appropriate court in Bendel State until the

coming into force of the 1979 constitution.

2.

The Constitution did not delimit the jurisdictional powers it conferred on the

15



High Courts by ss.6, 234, 236 and 239, as such any argument to the effect that

the Constitution by its coming into force gave both legal power and territorial

jurisdiction to each state High Court only in respect of matters filed on or after

1st October, 1979, must be fallacious.

3.

Section 4 of Decree No. 17 of 1977 became spent on 1st October, 1979. The

20



transition must be in regard to matters filed before the coming into effect of

the constitution but still pending on its coming into effect.

4.

When a challenge is made to the jurisdiction of the court, that issue should be

settled one way or another before the hearing of the suit. Jurisdiction is

fundamental and crucial for if there is a want of jurisdiction the proceeding

25



thereafter will be affected by a fundamental vice and would became a nullity

however well conducted they might otherwise be.

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Obayuwana v. His Excellency, Prof. Ambrose Ali, Governor of Bendel State

30



and anor

(1983) 4 N.C.L.R. 96 at p.115.

2.

Deschamp v. Miller

(1908) 1 Ch. 856.

3.

Jacob Ndaeyo v. Godwin Ogunmaya

(1977) 1 S.C. 11; (1977) M.S.L.R. 300.

4.

Shitta-Bey v. Federal Public Service Commission

(1981) 1 S.C. 40.

5.

Olaniyan v. University of Lagos

(1985) 2 N.W.L.R. 599.

35



6.

Oyeyipo v. Oyinloye

(1987) 1 N.W.L.R. 356.

7.

Uwaifo v. The Attorney-General Bendel State & Ors

(1982) 7 S.C. 124.

8.

Flannagan v. Shaw

(1920) 3 K.B. 96 at 105.

9.

Rablu v. The State

(1980) 8-11 S.C. 130.

10.Nelson (Earl) vs. Bridport (Lord)

(1846) 8 Bear 547.

40



11.Attorney-General v. Steward

(1817) 2 Mer. 143 E.R. 835.

12./n

British South Africa Company v.Companhia De Mocambque

(1898) A.C.

602; (1891-4) All E.R. Rep. 640.

13.Scott v. Avery

(1856) 5 H.L. Gas 811.

14.Smith v. East Eloe R.D.C.

(1956) A.C. 736.

45



15. Savannah Bank Limited v. Pan Atlantic Limited & Nicannor Food Limited

(1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 49) 212.

16.Butler v. Attorney General (Victoria)

106 C.L.R. 268 at 275 and 276.

17.

Garnett v. Bradley

(1978) 3 App. Gas 944, 966.

18.

Strading v. Morgan

(1560) 1 Plow 199, 200.

50



19.Artension v. Procopion

(1966) 1 Q.B. 878, 888.

Chief F.R.A. Williams, S.A.N.

(with him

P.G.E. Umeadi, S.A.N.

and

F.R.A. Williams

(Jnr)

for the Appellants.

G.R.I. Egonu, S.A.N.

(with him

P.N.C. Nwagbogu)

for the Respondent.