Reflections on Some Aspects of the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under the Nigerian 1979 and 1999 Constitutions: One or More High Courts?

• Author: Taiwo Osiptan - Abiodun Odusote
• Position: University of Lagos, Nigeria - University of Lagos, Nigeria
• Pages: 5-30

JURIDICA

5

Public Law

Reflections on Some Aspects of the

Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court

under the Nigerian 1979 and 1999

Constitutions: One or More High Courts?

Taiwo OSIPTAN

1

, Abiodun ODUSOTE

2

Abstract: This research makes enquiries on the jurisdictional conflicts under the 1999 Constitution of

Nigeria. The central issues in the jurisdictional conflicts und er CFRN are two-fold. They are: whether

the Federal High Court h as jurisdiction in all cases involving the Federal Government or any of its

agencies, irrespective of the subject matter of the case or whether the jurisdiction conferred on the

Federal High Court is exclusive to the Court or is concurrently shared with other High Courts. A

related problem is whether the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court is restricted to those

specific causes, listed in Section 251 or extends to all matters within the legislative competence of the

National Assembly. The interpretation and application of this provision have generated, and continues

to generate the jurisdictional crisis. The conflicts have further deepened with the recognition of the

National Industrial Court as a Court of co-ordinate status as the Federal and State High Courts. This

paper examines some of the jurisdictional conflicts which have arisen in the jurisprudence of these

courts. The problems associated with adoption of dual system of High Courts are thereafter examined.

The paper ends with a discourse on the desirability of one or two or three High Courts within the

Nigerian judicial system. The paper concludes that the existence of three High Courts within the

Nation’s judicature raises question of desirability or otherwise of more than one High Court in a

judicature which has only one Court of Appeal and only one Apex Co urt which entertains appeals

from the three trial Courts. In the final analysis, the paper makes a p roposal for the merger of all trial

courts to form a National High Court or High Court of the Federation.

Keywords: Jurisdictional conflicts; Federal High Court; State High Court; National Industrial Court;

Exclusive List

JEL Classification: K10

1

University of Lagos, Nigeria, Address: Akoka-Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria 120105, Tel.: +234 1 734 6830,

E-mail: tosipitan@unilag.edu.ng.

2

University of Lagos, Nigeria, Address: Akoka-Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria 120105, Tel.: +234 1 734 6830,

Corresponding author: aodusote@unilag.edu.ng.

AUDJ, vol. 12, no. 3/2016, pp. 5-30

ACTA UNIVERSITATIS DANUBIUS Vol. 12, no. 3/2016

6

1. Introduction

Nigeria attained a full Federal status in 1954 as a result of the creation of Regional

Governments and a Central Government. Federal principles were introduced into

the Nation’s Judicial System in 1973 when the defunct Federal Revenue Court was

established. Prior to the establishment of the Court, Regional and State Courts

exercised jurisdiction over all causes and matters. The Revenue Court was

established against the background, of the need to determine “with dispatch” cases

involving the revenue of the Federal Government, which the State High Courts

were “too tardy” in dealing with. It is noteworthy, that the Court was established

in spite of opposition and criticisms which greeted the proposal for its

establishment. After its establishment attempts were made to abolish the Court.

There have also been efforts to either reduce or expand the jurisdiction of the

Court. For example, an attempt to expand the scope of t he court’s jurisdiction to

dispute between a bank and its Customer in pure Banking transaction-related

dispute was rightly rejected by the Supreme Court in Jammal Steel Structures v.

ACB Ltd. (1973)1 ALL NLR (Part 1) at P. 222; 1973 II SC P. 77. It is gratifying

that the Court survived the onslaught of advocates of its abolition. Under the 1979

Constitution, the Court was renamed Federal High Court. The Federal High Court

inherited the jurisdiction of the defunct Federal Revenue Court. The renaming of

the Court, subsequently resulted in the attempt to expand the scope of its

jurisdiction beyond Federal Government’s Revenue Matters to causes involving the

Federal Government and its Agencies, as well as Matters within legislative

competence of the National Assembly. These attempts resulted in some

jurisdictional crisis. Since its establishment there has been one controversy or the

other on the court’s jurisdiction. The jurisdictional relationship of the Federal and

State High Court has attracted endless controversies (Osipitan, 1983). There are

currently High Courts of Co-ordinate jurisdictions under the 1999 Constitution as

amended. These are: Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court and the

State High Courts/High Court of Federal Capital Territory. The existence of these

Court has generated and will continue to generate jurisdictional conflicts.

(Ogungbe, 1992; Dinakin, 1990)

The objective of this paper is to examine some of the jurisdictional conflicts which

have arisen as a result of the establishment of the Federal High Court. This paper

focuses on aspects of the court’s jurisdiction with respect to some Causes involving

Federal Government and its Agencies. The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court

under Section 251(1),(P),(Q),(R) & (S) and 251(2) & (3) are critically x-rayed