site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF PLATEAU STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NAS (2005)

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Coram
  • Salihu Modibbo Alfa Belgore JSC
  • Idris Legbo Kutigi JSC
  • Aloysius Iorgyer Katsina-Alu JSC
  • Umaru Atu Kalgo JSC
  • Akintola Olufemi Ejiwunmi JSC
  • Ignatius Chukwudi Pats-Acholonu JSC
Parties

Appellant:

  • Attorney-General of Plateau State

Respondent:

  • Attorney-General of Nasarawa State
Suit number
SC. 255/2000 SC. 269/2002
Delivered on

Background

This case arose from the division of the former Plateau State into Plateau and Nasarawa States in 1996. The primary dispute centers on liabilities related to projects that were initiated before the split but remained located in the new Nasarawa State. The plaintiff, the Attorney-General of Plateau State, contended that it incurred debts for the construction of the Awe-Tunga-Obi road and Doma water projects and sought reimbursement from the defendant, the Attorney-General of Nasarawa State, based on agreements regarding asset and liability sharing.

Issues

The central issues for determination were:

  1. Whether Nasarawa State should undertake financial liability for debts incurred by Plateau State for projects located within its territory.
  2. The validity of existing judgments against the former Plateau State and their relevance to the current claims.
  3. The principle guiding state succession regarding assets and liabilities post-division.

Ratio Decidendi

The court established that assets and liabilities incurred for projects located in a specific state are inherited by that state post-division. Affidavit evidence that is unchallenged can be accepted as conclusive proof of the matters stated therein. Furthermore, proper documentation of court judgments is essential to prove claims related to liabilities.

Court Findings

The court found that:

  1. The liabilities accrued for the Awe-Tunga-Obi road and Doma water projects were to be borne by Nasarawa State since these projects are located within its borders.
  2. The defendant did not present sufficient evidence disputing the plaintiff's claims regarding the shared liabilities as set out in prior judgments.
  3. The guideline that all assets and liabilities associated with specific locations belong to the respective state where they are situated was firmly established.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the claims of Plateau State, determining that Nasarawa State was entirely responsible for settling the outstanding debts from the projects located on its territory.

Significance

This ruling is significant as it clarifies the principles surrounding asset and liability sharing in the context of state succession in Nigeria, reinforcing the need for precise legal documentation and the acceptance of affidavit evidence in legal proceedings. It establishes a precedent for future cases involving state divisions and their respective obligations regarding pre-existing debts.

Counsel:

  • Mrs. F. B. Lotben, Director Civil Litigation, Plateau State
  • Mr. M. J. Agum, Director Civil Litigation, Nasarawa State