TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA, STATE.
| Pages | 225-275 |
TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE
225
"I know of no limit to the power of the court to grant a declaration except such
limit as it may impose upon itself
5
It is a matter of commonsense that when a court declines, or is declared to be
without jurisdiction, any enforcement action against such a decision must of neces-
sity be against the court itself rather than against the goods or persons or the
unsuccessful party. Such a coersive action against the court itself as the very fountain
of judicial justice is not the contemplation of the law of execution. There is therefore
10
great force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
declaration of want of jurisdiction is not capable of execution and so cannot be
stayed. I agree too that the respondents' remedy, if at all, lay in an application for
injunction.
For the above reasons and the fuller reasons contained in the judgment of my
15
learned brother, Obaseki, J.S.C., I agree that the appeal succeeds, and is allowed.
I subscribe to the orders made by him.
Appeal allowed.
20
TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE
25
ALHAJI TUKUR
V
GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
30
OBASEKI,
J.S.C.
NNAMANI,
J.S.C.
KARIBI-WHYTE,
J.S.C.
OPUTA,
J.S.C.
BELGORE,
J.S.C.
35
AGBAJE,
J.S.C.
NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.
5th September, 1989
APPELLANT
RESPONDENT
SUIT NO. SC 148/1988
Practice and Procedure - Jurisdiction - Determination of - Extent of Courts interpretative
40
jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction - Federal High Court - State High Court - Scope of
Chieftaincy Matter - Deposition of Chief
InterpretationofStatutes - Rules of Accessorius Sequitur naturam sui principalis ut res magis
valeat quart pereat.
Constitutional Law - Fundamental Human Rights - Breach of- S. 42 (1) 1979 Constitution.
ISSUES:
1.
What is jurisdiction?
2.
What is the exact limit of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
3.
What is the scope of jurisdiction vested in the High Court by the 1979
Constitution?
45
50
226
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1989] 3 N.S.C.C.
4.
Whether the meaning of "a High Court in that State" as provided by S. 42(1) of
the 1979 Constitution extends to and include the Federal High Court outside the
territorial boundaries of the state where the breach occured.
5.
What is a Chieftaincy matter?
FACTS:
5
The military Governor of Gongola State made an order dated 12th August, 1986
removing Alh. Tukur as the Emir of Muri which order was known and called The
Deposition (of Emir of Muri. Alh. Tukur) order 1986.
Another order was made on the 8th of September, 1986 by the military Governor
of Gongola State. This second order banished the deposed Emir to Mubi another 10
town in Gongola State.
Pursuant to these orders the said Alh. Tukur started the present proceedings in
the Federal High Court Kano against the Governor of Gongola State by a motion on
notice pursuant to order 4 Rule 1 (2) and Order 6 Rule 1(1) of the Fundamental Rights
(Enforcement Procedure Rules 1979).
15
The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear the
application. The learned trial Judge dismissed the application and held that the
provisions of S. 42(1) of the 1979 Constitution expanded the Jurisdiction of the
Federal High Court to any matter provided the litigation is in respect of breach or
threat of breach of fundamental rights.
20
The defendant aggrieved appealed to the court of Appeal, the court of Appeal
allowed the appeal in part and held that the Federal High Court had Jurisdiction to
determine and grant the reliefs claimed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 of the plaintiff's claim
provided, their determination is possible without embarking on the determination of
any question relating to the legal validity of the deposition of the defendant as the 25
Emir of Muri. In respect of claims in paragraphs 1 and 2 the Federal High Court has
no jurisdiction to entertain, determine or grant the reliefs claimed not-with-standing
the alleged violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by S.33 (1) of the
constitution.
The plaintiff still dissatisfied appealed to the Supreme Court on the decision of 30
the court of Appeal that the Federal High court has no jurisdiction to entertain or
grant reliefs claimed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of plaintiff's claim.
The defendant cross-appealed against the part of the decision of the court of
appeal where it was held that the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to determine
and grant the reliefs claimed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of plaintiff's claim.
35
HELD:
1.
Jurisdiction implies the power or authority of a court to adjudicate. over a
particular subject matter, also the nature of the claim determines jurisdiction.
2.
The Federal High Court is a court of limited jurisdiction which cannot exercise
jurisdiction over any caused or matter outside that conferred on it by S. 7 (1) of 40
the Act No. 13 of 1973 which created it and as enabled by S. 230 of the 1979
constitution or any other future Act of the National Assembly.
3.
That the jurisdiction of the State High Court is as provided in S.236(1) of the 1979
Constitution. The High courts of a State are vested with unlimited jurisdiction to
hear and determine civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal 45
right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest obligation or claim is in issue.
4.
That by virtue of S.42(1) of the 1979 constitution which vest "the High Court" with
special jurisdiction "to deal with breaches of the fundamental rights and if such
breaches occur he is to apply to a High Court in that state for redress. From the
facts of this case the alleged contravention of the plaintiff's fundamental right took 50
place in Gongola State. By virtue of S. 42(1) he has to apply to a High Court in
that State" where the contravention or breach occured. And so the Federal High
Court Kano does not qualify as a High Court in Gongola State as was envisaged
by S. 42(1) of the Constitution.
TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE
227
5.
That where other issues on which the court has no jurisdiction are involved, the
court can only in excercise of its jurisdiction under the section try such cases if
it can effectively enforce the fundamental rights provisions without entering into
any question relating to the determination of the issues on which it has no
jurisdiction. In this case the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to determine and
grant reliefs claimed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 since none of them is dependent
upon the fact that applicant is the Emir of Muri for its existence.
6.
A Chieftaincy matter relates to any question as to the validity of the selection,
appointment, approval of appointment, recognition, installation, grading,
deposition of and abdication of a chief.
[As to
The Limit of Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court
see:
Bronik Motors Ltd.
& Anor. v. Wema Bank Ltd.
(1983) N.S.C.C. Vol. 14 226.]
[As to
Scope of Jurisdiction Vested in the High Court by the 1979 Constitution
see:
Upai v. Okoro & Ors.
(1983) N.S.C.C. Vol. 599.]
[As to
Chieftaincy Matter
see:
Ex-parte Adenaiya v. The Gov-in-Council (W.R.) (1962)
N.S.C.C. Vol. 2 205.]
CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT
1.
Lasisi Ajibola Odunsi v. Aminu Ojora
(1961)
All N.L.R.
283
2.
Arnold Nwafia v. Ububa
(1966) N.M.L.R. 219
3.
Omerod v. Domorden
4.
Oke v. Oke
(1974) 1 All N.L.R. 443.
5.
Akisatan Apena of 1poro v. Akinwande Thomas
6.
Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Wema Bank Ltd.
(1983) 1 S.C.
N.L.R.
296.
7.
Mandara v. Attorney - General of the Federation
(1984) 1. S.C.N.L.R. 311.
8.
African Newspapers v. Attorney - Geneal of the Federation
(1987) N.W.L.R.
137.
9.
Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd.d V Pan Atlantic Shipping and Transport Ltd. &
Anor.
(1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 49) 212.
10.Aqua
Ltd. v. Ondo Sports
Council(1988) 10-11 S.C.N.J. 26.
11.
L.S.D.PC. v. Foreign Finance Corporation
(1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 50) 413.
12.
Clark v.
13.lzenkwe v. Nnadozie
14 W.A.C.A. 361.
14.Adeyemi v. Opeyori
(1976) 9-10 S.C.31.
15.
Western Steel Works v. Iron & Steel Works
(1987)
N.W.L.R.
(Pt. 49) 284.
16.
The African Press of Nigeria & Ors. v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria
(1985)
1 All N.L.R. 50.
17.
Jonah Eze v. Federal Republic of Nigeria
(1987) 1
N.W.L.R.
(Pt. 51) 506.
18.Madukolu v. Nkemdilim
(1962) 1 All N.L.R. 587.
19. Federal Minister of Internal Affairs & Ors. v. Shugaba Darman
(1982) 3
N.C.L.R. 915.
20.Adigun v. A.G. of Oyo State
(1987) 1 N.W.L.R. (pt. 53) 678.
21.A.G.
Kaduna State v. Hassan
(1985) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt. 8) 483.
22.Olaniyan & Ors. v. University of Lagos
(1985)2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 9) 599.
23.Eperokun & Ors. v. University of Lagos
(1986) 4 N.W.L.R. 162.
24.
Garba & Ors. v. University of Maiduguri
(1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (pt. 18) 550.
25.
Federal Civil Service Commission & Ors. v. Laoye
(1989) 2 N.W.L.R. 652.
26.Olatunbosun v. N.I.S.E.R.
(1988) 2 N.W.L.R. 25.
27.Re
Royal Liver Friendly Society
(1887) 35 Ch. D. 332.
28.Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Onyeouchi Eze
(1982) 3 N.C.L.R. 259.
29.
The Senate of the National Assembly v. Tony Momoh
(1983) 4 N.C.L.R. 269.
30.Jammal Steel Structures Ltd. v. African Continental Bank Ltd.
(1973) 1 All
N.L.R. (Pt. 11) 208.
To continue reading
Request your trial