Determination of the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court Over Contractual Matters- A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in Crestar V SPDC

Description

ABSTRACT

Determination of the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court Over Contractual Matters- A Review of the Supreme Court Decision in Crestar V SPDC

Kingsley Ibe* and Ilemobade Olateru-Olagbegi**

This article discusses the issues surrounding the determination of jurisdiction over contractual matters by the Federal High Court. In a plethora of judicial authorities, it has been held that the State High Court is vested with jurisdiction for actions arising from simple contracts. However, the Supreme Court assumed a more stringent position in Crestar Integrated Natural Resources Limited v The Shell Petroleum Development Company & 2 Ors when it held that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction in all forms of contractual matters, whether simple or complex contracts. This article adopts the analytical approach as its methodology in consideration of legal sources to criticize the decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard and makes a case for the sustenance of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court over contractual matters whose objects touch on the enumerated items of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

Keywords: Jurisdiction, Federal High Court, State High Court, Simple Contract, 1999 Constitution.

INTRODUCTION
Jurisdiction of a court is a matter of law and it is vested on a court by the Constitution and the statute establishing the court.₁ It is the foundation for all judicial proceedings before a court or tribunal in any judicial system and the pillar upon which every other brick of judicial process is mounted upon. Where jurisdiction is lacking, the entire proceedings becomes void and a nullity however well conducted. The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is derived from section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (“the 1999 Constitution”), while that of the High Court of a State is derived from Section 272.

One of the subject matters over which the State High Court has jurisdiction is as regards contractual relationships. However, some judicial decisions suggest that the State High Court shares this jurisdiction with the Federal High Court.₂ The differentiating factor has been the determination of whether the relationship between the parties is one of a simple contract, in which case the State High Court will have jurisdiction. This is suggestive that in some other contracts of a complex nature,

*LL.B (Hons) BL. Associate at Babalakin & Co. He can be reached via E-mail: ki***********@gm***.com; ki**@ba************.com.
** LL.B (Hons) BL. Associate at Babalakin & Co. He can be reached via E-mail: io***************@ba************.com.

1. Bakare v Nigeria Railway Corporation [2007] 17 NWLR (pt 1064) 606.
2. [2017] LPELR-41558(SC).

THE GRAVITAS REVIEW OF BUSINESS & PROPERTY LAW VOL.12 NO.3