In this article, Chief Mike Ahamba, SAN examines the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court amid controversies over its involvement in internal political party disputes. Relying on the historical evolution of the Federal High Court from the Federal Revenue Court, relevant provisions in the 1999 Constitution and several Supreme Court decisions, the article contends that the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to the internal affairs or leadership disputes of political parties, arguing that when courts assume jurisdiction outside what the law permits, their decisions become legally invalid, and urges judicial authorities—particularly the National Judicial Council (NJC)—to ensure that courts strictly respect constitutional limits in order to prevent legal confusion and political instability.
In recent weeks in Nigeria, in the course of the political imbroglios in multiple political parties, diverse opinions have been expressed by both professional and lay men in pursuit of parochial interests on the issue of the jurisdiction of a High Court over the internal affairs of the political parties. At the centre of this jurisdictional tumoil is the Federal High Court from which some decisions have emanated on some internal disputes of certain political parties. The highest court of the land, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has also had the opportunity of making some pronouncements on this vexed, though statutorily and judicially settled issue. This paper is not on any such current cases, pending or decided, but is aimed at assisting public appreciation of what the Law is, as understood by me as a bonafide citizen of Nigeria and a legal practitioner of fifty two years experience in Court room practice. This is because an Igbo proverb says that an elder should not watch a goat deliver in tethers in his presence. The cacophony of views have arisen, one believes, from fundamental ignorance and over-bloated selfishness. One hopes that the purpose of this paper, which is the assuaging of public interest, will be served. As I write, I do not assert infallibility.
The jurisdiction of every Court is determined by the statute under which it was set up. According to one of our very eminent justices, Chukwudifu Oputa JSC in the lead judgment of the majority decision (6-1) as reported in the case of TUKUR Vs GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR 517 @ 567B-C, the jurisdiction
“of a Court may be limited either by the amount or value of the property in litigation or as to the type of subject-matter it can handle. Courts are creatures of statute and it is the statute that created a particular Court that will also confer on it its jurisdiction” (emphasis mine)
The learned Justice concluded on the same page thus:
“This may be extended, not by Courts, but by the legislature for as this Court observed in the African Newspapers of Nigeria Ltd, supra, it is part of the interpretative functions of our Courts to expound the jurisdiction of the Court but not to expand it”(emphasis mine)
With the above statements in mind, a look at the creation and history of the Federal High Court, which is the Court that is currently in the eye of the storm, is hereunder discussed.
The Federal High Court started its existence as part of the Nigerian judiciary in 1973 as the Federal Revenue Court under the Revenue Court Act No.13 of 1973 which was later transformed into the Federal High Court by the Federal High Court Act of 1973, and in 1979 confirmed Constitutionally as Federal High Court under section 230 of that Constitution. With its root in Federal Revenue matters, it is obvious that that objective has continued to be observed in the interpretation, or should one say in the expounding of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court which began with the decision in Jammal Steel Structures Ltd Vs African Continental Bank Ltd (1973) 1 ALL NLR (Pt.11) 208, in which the Supreme Court relied on the locus classicus of BRONIK MOTORS LTD & ANOR Vs WEMA BANK LTD (1983) NSCC 226, in which Nnamani JSC in his lead judgment construed the provisions as to jurisdiction of the Federal Revenue Court, the Jurisdiction of Federal High Court, and the subsequent overriding jurisdiction in the 1979 Constitution after which he came to the conclusion that while the Federal High Court was a Court of limited jurisdiction, the State High Court was of unlimited jurisdiction. According to his Lordship, as reported at page 24533-43, there appeared to be controversy
“as to the meaning of section 230(2) of the 1979 Constitution. In my view that section not only restyles the old ‘Federal Revenue Court’ ‘Federal High Court’ but vests in the Federal High Court all powers and jurisdiction enjoyed by the old Revenue Court. Accordingly in my view pursuant to section 274 of the 1979 Constitution, the Federal High Court will continue to enjoy such jurisdiction and powers as were conferred on the Federal Revenue Court Act No.13 of 1973, section 8(3) of the Counterfeit currency(Special Provision) Act, No.22 of 1974 as amended by the Constitution of the Federation (Consequential Repeals) Act No.105 of 1979, section 21(1), 49(1), 62 of the Insurance Act 1970 No.59 of 1976, and the Bankruptcy Act of 1979 No.16 of 1979”.(emphasis mine)
As may be deduced from the excerpt above, the limitation of the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was clearly pointing to the financial or revenue interest of the Federal Government. This paper will consider whether under the Constitutions or other statutes this position has changed, and to what extent. Two cases on the interpretation of the constitutional provision on Federal High Court Jurisdiction are of common knowledge, or, should I say, ought to be of common knowledge to Court room Legal Practitioners. These are
(a) Savannah Bank Ltd Vs Pan Atlantic Shipping & Transport Agencies Ltd & Anors (1987)1 NWLR (Pt.49)212.
(b) Western Steel Works Ltd & Anor Vs Iron & Steel Workers Union of Nigeria & Anor (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.49) 28.
In these two Judgments, the Supreme Court of Nigeria identified and defined the strict Jurisdictional limitation of the Federal High Court as it had come to be under the 1979 Constitution.
In the Savannah Bank case supra, as stated by Coker JSC in his lead Judgment as reported at page 226A of the Nigeria Weekly Law reports, it is
“common ground that if the action was instituted before 1st October 1979 when the present Constitution of the Federal Republic came into force and since I have found it to be an Admiralty cause, then the Federal High Court would have exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of the combined effect of Sections 7(i) (b)(iii), 8(i),24 and the 63(4) of the Federal High Court Act 1973. That was the decision of this Court in American International Insurance Company Vs Ceekay Traders Ltd (1981) 5 SC.81. The question now is whether the 1979 Constitution has altered that exclusive jurisdiction”.
Noting that the 1979 Constitution had defined the jurisdiction of the various Courts for the Federation, after discussing the content and effect of Section 274 of the Constitution, His Lorship concluded, as reported at page 229B of the cited Report that by virtue of Section 230(2) of the Constitution and Section 7(1) of the Federal High Court Act 1973, and the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court under Section 236 of the said Constitution, both the Federal and the State High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction in admiralty causes. He further stated that Section 8(1) of the Federal Revenue Act 1973 which gave exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court on that subject matter was inconsistent with Section 236 of the Constitution, and was therefore void to the extent of that inconsistency. The judgment was unanimous. The Apex Court also delivered a similar unanimous decision in the Western Steel Works case supra: In that case Oputa JSC in his concurring judgment lifted and upheld the findings of the trial judge thus:
“The learned trial judge found, and rightly in my view, that the dispute between the parties has nothing to do with the operation of the Companies Decree 1968 or other enactment regulating the operation of Companies incorporated under the Companies Decree 1968 nor had the case anything to do with taxation of Companies. In other words the facts alleged in the Writ and Statement of Claim do not pertain to Section 7(1)(b)(i) or (c)(1) of the Federal High Court Act 1973. The dispute was between employees who happen to be of a Trade Union and their employers” (emphasis mine)
This case related to the National Industrial Court.
His Lordship further added that the mere fact that the Plaintiffs in their Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim mentioned the Labour Act 1974 “does not automatically and ipso facto make their dispute with the Respondents one cognisable only by the National Industrial Court (emphasis mine)
From these Supreme Court decisions it is clear that the Federal High Court from inception as a Federal Revenue Court has been a Court of special jurisdictions as expressly provided under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and other relevant Federal statutes, while the State High Court, on coming into effect of the Constitution on October 1, 1979, became a Court of unlimited jurisdiction. The vital question now is whether there is change with the coming into effect of the 1999 Constitution even as severally amended.
Just as the 1979 Constitution conferred jurisdictional competence on Courts, so has the 1999 Constitution done. The Constitution created the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) while the creation of the State High Court is under Section 270 thereof. That jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court is, as expressly stated, ‘exclusive’ “notwithstanding anything to contrary in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, …………”(emphasis mine)
In other words, apart from items listed under this Section of the Constitution which are 19 in number under Section 251(1), and the additional three provisions under Section 251(2),(3) and (4), there is no further provision on the competency of the Federal High Court under that section. On the other hand, Section 270 creates the State High Court and conferred jurisdiction on it under Section 272(1) subject to the jurisdiction already conferred on the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the Constitution. In other words the State High Court has no jurisdiction on anything provided under Section 251 of the Constitution. So it is that while the Federal High Court is limited to the provisions under Section 251 of the Constitution and any other provision under an Act of the National Assembly, the State High Court is excluded from exercising jurisdiction over the items listed under that Section 251, and Section 254 Constitution (National Industrial Court Provision). Aside these, Section 272(1) of the Constitution, provides that the High of a State
“shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceeding in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment, or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person” (emphasis mine)
It should be observed that while the Federal High Court has as limited under the Constitution the items over which that Court may exercise jurisdiction, there is no such itemised list for the State High Court. Hence the State High Court has been held by the Supreme in some of the cases cited supra as having unlimited Jurisdiction.
Under the 1999 Constitution, two additional jurisdictions have been added to the Federal High Court.
The first, of note, is under Section 46(1) which aims at protecting Fundamental Rights provided under Chapter IV of the Constitution. That section provides:
“Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redness” (emphasis mine)
This jurisdiction is given to a High Court, not relatively of the Federal or State. Furthermore that contravention can only be heard by a High Court in the State in which the contravention was made. The Supreme Court has held that apart from the provision that the suit must be brought in the State where the infringement occurred it also held that the subject matter must be within the statutory jurisdictional competence of the High Court, Federal or State. In the case of TUKUR Vs GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989)4 NWLR (Pt.117) 517 at 547 B-C Obaseki JSC in the lead judgment said:
“If any consideration and determination of the civil rights and obligations in matters outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court inextricably involves a consideration and determination of the breach or threatened breach of any of the fundamental rights provisions the exercise of jurisdiction which the Federal High Court does not possess is a nullity. The lack of jurisdiction inexorably nullifies the proceeding and judgment. It is therefore an exercise in facility”. (emphasis mine)
At page 549D, His Lordship emphasised:
“In the process of expounding the jurisdiction conferred on them the Courts have always emphasised the need to decline jurisdiction where its exercise will determine issues it has no jurisdiction to hear and determine”.(emphasis mine)
This comment draws attention to the importance of human element in the maintenance of the rule of Law.
Another additional jurisdiction to the Federal High Court may be found in Section 272 (3) of the Constitution in respect of the determination of whether a term of office or seat,
“of a member of the House of Assembly, Governor or Deputy Governor has ceased or become vacant”.
This jurisdiction again is subject to Section 251 and other provisions of the Constitution. It is not clear to me what this conferred jurisdiction means. Section 251(4) relates to the Senate or House of Representative, while Section 272(3) relates to membership of House of Assembly, office of Governor and Deputy Governor. It would then appear that the Federal High Court and State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 272(3) of the Constitution. Until the effect of subjecting this jurisdiction as it pertains to Federal High Court to Section 251, one would prefer to await a judicial interpretation of the Section 272(3) of the Constitution.
Outside the Constitution, additional jurisdiction has also been conferred on the Federal High Court under Section 87(14) of the Electoral Act, 2022 which, again, is limited to an aspirant to nomination for election and no more. The section provides:
“(14) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or the rules of a political party an aspirant who complains that any of the provisions of this Act and the guidelines of a political party have not been complied with in the selection or nomination of a candidate of a political party for election may apply to the Federal High Court for redress”.
Unlike in the preceding statutes on this item, State High Court has not been mentioned. Does this amount to exclusion? One thinks not as in conferring this jurisdiction, it was not made exclusive as in Section 251 of the Constitution. It is therefore posited that the provision of Section 272(1) of the Constitution making State High Court to be of unlimited jurisdiction is not affected by the provision of a statute such as the Electoral Act.
As decided in several appeals by our Supreme Court, jurisdiction is a threshold issue that a Court must determine before delving into the merits of the case whether at the interlocutory or final stage of any proceeding. This is because any judicial act done without jurisdiction is an exercise in futility. This point was expressly noted in the judicial pronouncement of Obaseki JSC (in the Tukur Vs Govt of Gongola State supra).
In the case of KATTO Vs CBN (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt.214) 126 at 149D Akpata JSC in his lead judgment
“Jurisdiction is fundamental. It is a fiat, the stamp of authority to adjudicate. If it is not these, the Court Labours in vain and all it does amounts to nothing, a nullity”. (emphasis mine)
In the case of OBIKOYA Vs WEMA BANK LTD (1992) 5NWLR (Pt.239)122 at 218 Niki Tobi JCA (as he then was), relying on the Supreme Court decision in ODOGWU Vs ODOGWU (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.225) 539, held that an order of Court made without jurisdiction is an
“invalid order, deficient in Law and has no legal effect whatsoever”
A cursory look at the provisions conferring Jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, whether in the (1999) Constitution (as amended) or the Electoral Act 2022, would show that there is nothing empowering the Federal High Court to delve into any matter pertaining or relating to the interpretation or application of the Constitutions of political parties or other private organisations, whether corporate or not. Matters pertaining or relating to elections into party offices or any crises in a political party are extraneous of the Federal High Court Jurisdiction Engaging then in such matters appear to me to be forum shopping, and when such engagement becomes successful, it raises unanswered question as to the integrity of the forum.
As the nation wobbles towards the next general elections, the National Judicial Council must as a matter of national patriotism and professional pride monitor the assumption of Jurisdiction by the Federal High Courts to issue orders which are deficient in law and which ought to have no legal effect whatsoever, but end up having the effect of creating unwholesome political crises in political parties, and heating up the polity.
