Jurisdictional Conflict between States High Court and the Federal High Court Flashcards
What happened in that case of Jammal Street Structures Ltd v. ACB LTD
Section 7(1)(b)(i) of the Federal Revenue Court Decree of 1973 was interpreted by the Supreme Court. The court held that the term “measures” was to qualify each of the preceding subjects: banking, foreign exchange, currency, and other fiscal measures. Therefore, the section should be understood as covering banking measures, foreign exchange measures, currency measures, and other fiscal measures. The Federal Revenue Court’s jurisdiction did not extend to disputes between a bank and its customers in ordinary banking transactions, allowing State High Courts to handle such cases, as the government was not directly interested in the dispute’s outcome.
Section 42 of the 1979 constitution
was interpreted to require that actions against the government or its agencies for breaches of fundamental rights should be brought before the Federal High Court.
Federal Minister of Internal Affairs v Shugaba
where Shugaba alleged a breach of his fundamental rights by the Minister of Internal Affairs, including an encroachment on his freedom of movement as guaranteed by Section 38(1) of the 1979 Constitution. Shugaba sought redress at the Maiduguri High Court in Borno State. The central issue was whether it was appropriate for him to file the action in a State High Court given that the defendant was a federal agency. The majority of the Court of Appeal ruled that the State High Court was competent to handle the case. However, Mamman Nasir, President of the Court of Appeal, dissenting, argued that since the claim involved federal functionaries, the matter should have been filed in the Federal High Court, rendering the State High Court without jurisdiction in this instance.
Tony Momoh v The Senate
The court addressed whether a complainant had the option to choose between the Federal and State High Courts for redress. It concluded that Section 42(2) of the Constitution intended for a person seeking to enforce a fundamental right against the Federal Government or its authorities to go to the Federal High Court. Conversely, claims against State Governments or authorities should be directed to the State High Court. The court reasoned that construing Section 42(2) otherwise would undermine the specific provisions of the Constitution, effectively creating a jurisdictional overlap that was not intended.
The controversy surrounding the jurisdiction of the State High Court under the 1979 Constitution was ultimately resolved in Bronik Motors Ltd v. West African Bank Ltd
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the State High Court had unlimited jurisdiction over all matters, whether civil or criminal, within its jurisdiction, subject only to the limitations imposed by Section 230 of the Constitution. The Court held that the judicial powers vested in the courts by Section 6 of the Constitution were meant to define the nature of judicial authority, not to restrict the extent of judicial power.
Mandara v. Ag FED
where the Supreme Court emphasized that there was no basis for distinguishing between federal and state justice; justice should be administered according to the laws of the land.
Savannah Bank v. Pan-Atlantic Shipping Co. Ltd
he Supreme Court, while affirming the ruling in Bronik Motors, also recognized that the State High Court, with its unlimited jurisdiction, had concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal High Court over matters within the latter’s jurisdiction
Subsequently, in Eze v. Republic, Justice Chukwudifu Oputa provided a comprehensive clarification:
- Before 1973, State High Courts were the superior courts of record with unlimited jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters. 2. The Federal Revenue Court, established by Act No. 13 of 1973, exclusively handled matters listed in Section 7(1) of the Act. 3. The purpose of the Federal Revenue Court was to expedite cases involving Federal Government revenue, and it did not cover matters unrelated to this revenue. 4. With the 1979 Constitution, State High Courts were granted unlimited jurisdiction by Section 236. The Federal Revenue Court was renamed the Federal High Court, which retained jurisdiction limited to matters previously conferred by Section 7(1) of the 1973 Act, plus any additional jurisdiction provided by the Constitution or future enactments by the National Assembly.
What did the enactment of Decree 107 of 1993 do
It revived the jurisdictional conflict conflict before Federal and State High Court
What were the implications of Decree 107?
The Decree not only made the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court exclusive but also expanded its scope significantly. Key provisions of the Decree relevant to this issue include:
Nigerian Industrial Development Bank Ltd v. Fembol (Nig) Ltd** highlighted the implications of
The this Decree. True or False
True
N.D.I.C. v. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria
interpreted the proviso to Section 230(1)(d) of the 1979 Constitution (as amended by Decree 107 of 1993) to mean that State High Courts retain jurisdiction over banker/customer disputes, which are expressly excluded from the Federal High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. This interpretation was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which held that State High Courts have jurisdiction over such matters, even though the Federal High Court may have concurrent jurisdiction in some instances.
What is the most important factor of Decree 107 to 1993
Paragraphs q, r and s which deal with actions againstbthe federal government and its agencies
Ministry Administrator of Kwara v. Lafaji
ere the Court of Appeal determined that a Military Administrator and State Commissioner of Police, acting in their state capacities, could not be considered agents of the Federal Government for jurisdictional purposes. Consequently, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter, which was transferred to the Kwara State High Court.
