The Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden on Friday The 14th Day of December
2018
Holden on Friday The 14th Day of December 2018
Musa Dattijo Muhammad
Kumai Bayang Akaahs
Amina Adamu Augie
Paul Adamu Galumje
Sidi Dauda Bage
Justices, Supreme Court SC. 184/2009
Between
Oil & Gas Export Free Zone Authority——Appellant
And
- T. C. Osanakpo (SAN) ——————— Respondent
[Doing Business as Dr. T. C. Osanakpo & Co.]
Judgment Delivered by Amina Adamu Augie, JSC
Judgment Delivered by Musa Dattijo Muhammad, JSC
Judgment Delivered By Paul Adamu Galinje, JSC
FACTS
The Appellant retained the Respondent, who is a legal
practitioner and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, to provide legal and
consultancy services in respect of two of its projects at Onne, in
Rivers State.
In the two letters conveying the terms of the retainership and
scope of his services, both dated 30/4/2003, it was expressly
stated that Respondent’s “legal fees shall be negotiated and
discounted”. The Respondent later forwarded Bills of charges dated
21/7/2003 for the sums of N12,000,000.00 and N18,000 000.00 to the
Appellant, but the Appellant only paid him a total sum
9,000,000.00.
The Respondent’s demands for the balance of N21, 000,000.00 were
not met. Whereupon, he filed an action against the Appellant at the
High Court of Rivers State, wherein he claimed as follows
- The sum of N18,000,000.00, which represent unpaid legal fees
owed by the Defendant (Appellant) to the Plaintiff [Respondent]
from instructions of the Defendant [Appellant] contained in its
letter dated 30/4/2003 in respect of the contract for
infrastructure at the Defendant (Appellant)’s heliport project at
Onne. - The sum of N3,000,000.00 being the balance of legal fees owed
the [Respondent] by [Appellant] which arose from the (Appellant)’s
instruction contained in another letter dated 30/4/2003 to act as
its legal consultants in respect of the Build, Operate and Transfer
(BOT) Agreement of (Appellant)’s Heliport Project at Onne; and
Ill. 10% interest on the judgment sum from date of Judgment
until the Judgment debt is fully liquidated.
By a Motion Ex Parte filed at the trial Court, the Respondent
sought and was granted leave to enter the Suit under the Undefended
List. The Appellant subsequently filed its Notice of intention to
Defend, wherein it raised the following Preliminary Objections
that
- The Defendant herein is an agency of the Federal Government of
Nigeria established under Section 2(1) & (2) of the Oil &
Gas Export Free Zone Authority Decree, 1996. - The subject matter of this Suit to wit, an alleged breach of a
contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is an
administrative or management action/decision of the Defendant,
which is an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria by virtue
of Section 251(1), (q), (r) 8: (s) of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 - By virtue of the statutory and constitutional provisions set
out in 1 8i 2 above, the Subject matter of this Suit falls outside
the jurisdiction of the High Court of Rivers State and this
Honourable Court is most respectfully urged to decline jurisdiction
and strike out the Suit.
After hearing arguments on the Objection, the learned trial
Judge, lragunima, J, delivered his Ruling on 14/6/2005, and
followed it up immediately afterwards with his Judgment on the
substantive Suit. He concluded as follows in his Ruling on the
Preliminary Objection
‘’I cannot but come to the conclusion that the Preliminary
Objection is misconceived and that the Affidavit in support of the
Notice of intention to Defend does not disclose a defence on the
merit, in my view, I shall, therefore, pursuant to Order 23, Rule
4, Rules of this Court, 1987, enter Judgment for the Plaintiff in
this matter’’.
He then held as follows in his Judgment on the substantive
Suit
‘’The failure of the Defendant to reply Exhibit G, demanding
payment for professional services constitutes an admission of
liability by the Defendant and lends credence to the Plaintiff’s
side of the case The Defendant, therefore, clearly, does not have
any defence on the merit to the instant action. Judgment is,
therefore, entered for the Plaintiff, against the Defendant in the
total sum of Twenty-One Million Naira, being legal fees owed the
Plaintiff by the Defendant, from instructions of the Defendant in
two letters, both dated 30/4/2003. It is the further Order of this
Court that the Defendant shall pay interest on the said Judgment
sum at the rate of 3% from the date of the Judgment until the
Judgment debt is liquidated. The Plaintiff is entitled to N5,
000.00 Cost’’.
Its Appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, and the
Appellant has appealed to this Court with a Notice of Appeal
containing three rounds of Appeal.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the High
Court of Rivers State had the requisite Jurisdiction to entertain
the Respondent’s claim against the Appellant having regard to the
Appellant’s undisputed status as an agency of the Federal
Government of Nigeria.
ARGUMENT
Appellant’s contention in this Appeal is that the Respondent’s
claim was heard without jurisdiction and in breach of Section
251(1) of the 1999 Constitution [as amended], and decisions of this
Court in NEPA V. Edegbero & 15 Ors (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 79,
and that of the Court of Appeal in Lower River Basin & Rural
Development Authority [L.R.B. & R.D.A.] V. Olagbegi (2005) All
FWLR (Pt. 139) 1556 and Nwude V. Chairman, EFCC (2005) All FWLR
(Pt. 276) 740, which are decisions of appellate Courts that are
binding on the trial Court. It disagreed with the reasoning of the
Court below in this case, because, in its view, the said case of
Onuorah V. Kaduna Refining 8: Petra-Chemical Company Ltd.
[K.R.P.C.] (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393, is distinguishable from
NEPA V. Edegbero & 15 Ors (supra) in that:
NEPA and Appellant are agencies of the Federal Government,
established by specific Acts of the National Assembly.
NNPC is also an agency of the Federal Government but K.R.P.C.
Ltd. does not enjoy similar status. The latter is a private limited
liability company as shown by the word “Limited” In its name, and
as a subsidiary of NNPC, it is at best an agent of the said NNPC
but not an agency of the Federal Government.
The Judgment in Onuorah’s Case was based on the 1979
Constitution under which a State High Court had unlimited
Jurisdiction to hear a wide range of causes/matters including those
involving the Federal Government and its agencies.
Judgment in NEPA v. Edegbero was delivered by this Court on
13/12/2002 while the Judgment in Onuoha V. K.R.P.c. Ltd. was
delivered by this same Court on 11/2/2005 [27 Months later], and it
is also pertinent to observe that although Onu. JSC was a member of
the panel that heard the Edegbero’s Appeal, he also presided over
the panel that heard the Onuorah’s Appeal.
Edegbero’s Case was neither cited to nor considered by this,
Court in Onuorah’s Case, and Onuorah’s Case was not meant to and
did not, in fact, overrule the decision in Edegbero’s Case because
this Court, as the apex Court, treats its Judgment, especially
landmark Judgments with seriousness; and where its Judgment is
found to be working hardship on litigants or was reached per in
curiam, such a Judgment is usually brought to its attention to
decide whether to uphold or overrule it, after a thorough
re-evaluation of its merit and demerits.
Such a course of action was taken in Bucknor-Maclean & Anor
V. lnlaks Ltd. [200] FWLR [Pt. 85] 398/425, in which this Court’s
earlier decisions in Shell BP Company Limited V. Jammal Engineering
Company Nigeria Limited [1974] 1 ALL NLR and Owumi V. P. 2. &
Co. [Nig.] Ltd. [1974] 1 All N LR [Pt. 2] 107 were revisited and
expressly overruled because both decisions did not “accord with
justice” and their “consequences could not have been intended by
the Legislature”, therefore, the said Onuorah’s Case was decided on
its peculiar facts and its citing and reliance upon in this Appeal,
is inapposite and unhelpful.
However, if this Court holds that Onuorah’s Case contradicts its
decision in NEPA V. Edegbero, the Court is urged to choose and
follow its reasoning in NEPA V. Edgebero, because that will be
consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeal as expressed in
Nwude V. EFCC, L.R.B. & R.D.A. V. Olagbegi, University of Abuja
V. Ologe [1996] 4 NWLR [Pt. 445] 706 CA, Ayeni V. University of
llorin [2002] 2 NWLR [Pt. 644] 290 CA and Adebileie V. NEPA [1998]
12 NWLR [PT. 577] 219 CA.
It also submitted that this Appeal presents a golden opportunity
for this Court to streamline various interpretations given to the
Section 251 [1] of the 1999 Constitution as it concerns this Issue;
and in addition, the seeming ambiguity associated with the cases of
NEPA V. Edegbero, Onuorah V. K.R.P.C. and Nwanna V. FCDA, on this
particular Issue, should also be classified once and for all.
JUDGEMENT
I agree with the Respondent, and I will not hesitate to say so,
but before I give my reasons, l must say a few words on the
doctrine of stare decisis, which the Appellant appeared to have
lost sight of, with its submission that this Court, the apex Court
in the Country, should adhere to and follow the decisions of the
Court of Appeal. The doctrine of stare decisis “[Latin, “let the
decision stand”], also known as “Judicial Precedent”, is defined as
the policy of Courts to adhere to the principles established by
decisions in earlier cases. Reliance on such precedents is required
of lower Courts until such a time as a higher Court changes it, for
the lower Court cannot ignore the precedent (even where the lower
Court believes it is “bad law”). In other words, the law on
disputed points, issues or principles having been decided by a
higher Court in an earlier case, the lower Courts are bound by such
decisions and are not expected to deviate there-from or change such
decisions see Okoniji V Mudiaga Odje (1985) 10 SC 267 at
268-269.
See also Dalhatu V. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310, where
the attention of the learned trial Judge was drawn to a decision of
this Court in a case, which appeared to be on all fours with the
case before the trial Court, but he ignored it, which infuriated
this Court.
So, the Appellant is asking this Court to follow its reasoning
in the said case of NEPA V. Edegbero (supra), as “such an approach
will be consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeal as
expressed” in the cases cited and “other relevant decisions of the
Court of Appeal”.
What an absurd proposition that this Court should overlook or
close its eyes to its decisions after NEPA V. Edegbero (supra) and
adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeal in cases that were decided
in line with the decision of this Court in NEPA V. Edegbero
(supra).
This line of argument offends all known principles of stare
decisis. This Court is the apex Court in this Country, and by the
doctrine of stare decisis, all Courts are bound to follow decisions
of this Court Obiuweubi V. CBN (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 465. The
Court below must follow the decision of this Court; not the other
way around.
in arguing as it did, the Appellant also lost sight of the
principle that the facts in the future or present case have to bear
similar ties to those of the earlier case upon which the decisions
given was made Yaki V Bagudu (2015} 18 NWLR (Pt. 1491) 288 5C. More
importantly, lower Courts are enjoined to follow the decision of
this Court that is more recent on a particular issue, etc.
-Obiuweubl V. CBN (supra). Obviously, the Court below applied these
principles in arriving at its decision in this case. It considered
the facts of the case and decision of this Court in NEPA V.
Edegbero (supra) vis-a-vis the facts of the case and decision of
this Court in Onuorah V. K.R.P.C. (supra), and in its lead Judgment
by Eko, JCA (as he then was).
Yes, this Court “has given legal teeth” to the said stand taken
by the Court below in FCE, Oyo V. Akinyemi (supra), and this case;
that is, the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an
action on simple contract or debt recovery see Onuorah V. K.R.P.C.
(supra) and Adelekan V. Ecu-Line Consortium (supra), cited by
Respondent, wherein this Court, per Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was)
clearly said:
‘’The provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 are very clear and unambiguous.
It is the section that confers jurisdiction on the Federal High
Court, which jurisdiction clearly does not include dealing with any
case of simple contract’’.
In effect, this Court has expanded the law beyond the issue
raised in the 2002 case of NEPA V. Edegbero whether a State High
Court had jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to the
administration and management of the Federal Government or any of
its agencies.
Obviously, the Appellant was merely grasping at straws when it
brought in extraneous arguments about K.R.P.C. Ltd. not being an
agency of the Federal Government; and the Judgment in that case
-Onuorah V. K.R.P.C. (supra), being based on the 1979 Constitution.
To start with, the question of whether it is an agency of the
Federal Government is not an Issue in this Appeal. The lower Courts
found that the Appellant is an agency of the Federal Government and
Respondent conceded that it is a Federal Government agency,
therefore, the question of whether K.R.P.C. Ltd., was an agency of
the Federal Government or not, is outside the scope of this Appeal.
Besides, the Appellant in Onuorah V. K.R.P.C., had argued that the
Respondent [KRPC], being a subsidiary of NNPC, which in turn, is an
agent of the Federal Government, the trial Federal High Court had
jurisdiction to entertain its claim.
Clearly, the question of whether K.R.P.C. Ltd. was an agency of
the Federal Government was not an issue in Onuoha V. K.R.P.C. Ltd.,
and it is not the business of this Court to decide whether the use
of the word “Limited” in the name of the said K.R.P.C. means that
it is an agent of NNPC, and not an agency of the Federal
Government. What is more, the issue of whether Onuoha’s Case was
based on Section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution, while this case
is based on Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution is totally
irrelevant because Section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution is in
pari materia, [ Latin, Upon the same subject] with Section 251(1)
of the 1999 Constitution. The bottom line is that the Appellant has
nothing to hang on. The law is not static; rather it is dynamic and
adapts to issues as they come along in the various cases that pass
through the Courts of law. In the circumstances of this case, the
Court below was right to rely upon the decision of this Court in
Onuoha V. K.R.P.C. (supra), which is similar to this case, rather
than follow NEPA V. Edegbero. The end result is that this Appeal
lacks merit and is dismissed. The Respondent is awarded costs
assessed at one Million Naira.
Amina Adamu Augie, JSC
Representations:
Patrick 0. Ekeanyanwu, Esq. -Appellant
Dr. T. C. Osanakpo (SAN) – Appeared in
person
Subscribe ToNairalaw News!
Read more lower-courts-are-bound-to-follow-supreme-courts-decisions/