Follow Us on Google
From Godwin Tsa Abuja
The Supreme Court has nullified a Court of Appeal decision that directed a Lagos State High Court to transfer a lawsuit involving the Nigerian Maritim Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) to the Federal High Court.
The apex court, in a unanimous ruling delivered by Justice Moore Adumein, held that a state high court has no legal authority to transfer cases to the Federal High Court in matters where it lacks jurisdiction.
The proper course of action, the court clarified, would have been to simply strike out the suit.
The dispute traces back to a suit marked: LD/ADR/91/2013, filed at the Lagos State High Court by Integrated Oil and Gas Ltd and its Chairman, retired Captain Emmanuel Ihenacho, a former Minister of Interior.
The claimants sued NIMASA and three other defendants, Ziakade Patrick Akpobolkemi, Barrister Callistus Nwabueze Obi and Hajia Lami Tumaka, seeking damages of N90 billion and N349 million, along with a published retraction and apology in major newspapers over allegations of oil theft and illegal oil dealings levelled against them.
Other News
NIMASA had challenged the competence of the Lagos High Court to hear the matter, citing the pendency of a related suit at the Federal High Court.
The trial court dismissed this objection, prompting NIMASA to appeal.
The Court of Appeal sided with NIMASA on jurisdiction but went further, ordering the suit transferred to the Federal High Court — a decision NIMASA contested at the Supreme Court.
Arguing through Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), NIMASA contended that the Court of Appeal wrongly invoked Section 15 of its Act, since no provision in the Lagos High Court Law empowers a state court to transfer matters to the Federal High Court.
It submitted that while FHC could make an order transferring a matter in which it lacked jurisdiction to a state high court based on Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act (as amended), the latter court cannot make the same order of transfer under Section 22(3) of the Act.
The respondents through its counsel, Emmanuel Ekpenyong,
countered that Section 15 grants the appellate court broad powers to ensure cases are determined on their merits.
“The consequential order made by the Court of Appeal was pursuant to its powers under Section 15 of its Act,” he said.
The Supreme Court agreed with NIMASA, reaffirming that while the Federal High Court may transfer matters to state courts under Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act, the reverse is not permitted. The transfer order was accordingly set aside.
