MR. JERRY CHUNG BOT & ORS V. JOS ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION PLC (2021)

Background

This appeal concerned the proper court to determine a claim brought under the Fatal Accidents Law, Cap. 43, Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963, applicable in Plateau State. The appellants were the children and representative of the family of Musa Bot. On 24 October 1992, Musa Bot reported an electricity fault to the National Electric Power Authority (NEPA), the predecessor of the respondent, Jos Electricity Distribution Plc. Two NEPA employees attended the location and worked on an electric pole supplying the Bot family’s residence. Shortly after they left, Mrs. Musa Bot attempted to spread wet clothes on a wire line in the family compound. A naked, live wire from the electricity pole had fallen onto the metal roof of the house, energising a roofing nail connected to the clothesline. Mrs. Musa Bot was electrocuted and died. Her husband, who tried to rescue her, was also electrocuted and died.

Following unsuccessful efforts to obtain compensation, the appellants commenced proceedings in the Plateau State High Court under the Fatal Accidents Law. They claimed funeral expenses and damages for the deaths, alleging negligence by NEPA. The trial court found the defendant liable in respect of the death of Musa Bot and awarded special and general damages, while dismissing the claim relating to the death of Mrs. Musa Bot. The respondent appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and struck out the action, holding that the Plateau State High Court lacked jurisdiction because NEPA was a Federal Government agency and the Federal High Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction under the constitutional provisions then in force.

Issues

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the Plateau State High Court lacked jurisdiction over the appellants’ claim merely because the defendant was a Federal Government agency.
2. Whether a negligence claim for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Law fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under section 230(1)(q), (r) and (s) of the 1979 Constitution, as modified by Decree No. 107 of 1993, now reflected in section 251(1)(p), (q) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. The court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is a fundamental and threshold issue. A court is competent only where it is properly constituted, the subject matter falls within its jurisdiction, and the proceedings are initiated by due process after fulfilment of any condition precedent. Any proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are null from the beginning, as established in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim.

However, the presence of a Federal Government agency as a party does not, by itself, transfer every claim against that agency to the Federal High Court. In deciding jurisdiction, the court must examine both the parties and, critically, the subject matter and reliefs disclosed by the writ of summons and statement of claim. The appellants’ action was founded on negligence and sought compensation under the Fatal Accidents Law. Negligence is a tort, and tortious liability arising from a fatal accident was not one of the matters expressly reserved exclusively for the Federal High Court under section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

The constitutional provisions relied on by the respondent concerned matters relating to the administration, management and control of the Federal Government or its agencies, constitutional questions affecting the Federal Government or its agencies, and proceedings for declarations or injunctions affecting the validity of executive or administrative actions or decisions. The appellants sought neither a declaration nor an injunction challenging an administrative decision. Their claim was for damages resulting from alleged negligent maintenance and operation of an electricity distribution system. Accordingly, section 9 of the Fatal Accidents Law, which directed that proceedings under the law be commenced in the High Court or district court, applied. The Plateau State High Court therefore had jurisdiction.

Court Findings

Saulawa JSC, delivering the lead judgment, held that the Court of Appeal misapplied N.E.P.A. v. Edegbero. That decision did not establish that every action against a Federal Government agency belongs exclusively to the Federal High Court. Its application depends on the nature of the dispute and whether the claim falls within the specific constitutional categories. Kekere-Ekun JSC agreed that the claim was neither declaratory nor injunctive and that the constitutional proviso did not oust the general jurisdiction of the State High Court. Okoro JSC emphasised that the claim arose from negligence, not from the administrative realm of NEPA. Eko JSC similarly stated that the Federal High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction cannot be enlarged judicially to cover torts not listed in the Constitution. Jauro JSC concurred in the result.

The Supreme Court also stressed that courts must interpret the words used by the legislature and must not fill an alleged statutory gap through speculation or judicial law-making. If the legislature intends to extend the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction, the appropriate remedy is legislative amendment. The Court further recognised that a concurring judgment forms part of the judgment of an appellate court and may properly be relied on in determining the ratio of the decision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Jos Judicial Division, delivered on 18 April 2007 in appeal No. CA/J/94/2003. It restored the judgment of the Plateau State High Court delivered on 31 July 2001 in suit No. PLH/3637/95. The appellants were awarded costs of N1,000,000 against the respondent.

Significance

The decision provides an important jurisdictional guide for claims against Federal Government agencies in Nigeria. It confirms that the identity or federal status of a defendant is not conclusive. The decisive inquiry is whether the subject matter and reliefs fall within the specific matters constitutionally assigned to the Federal High Court. State High Courts retain jurisdiction over ordinary tort claims, including fatal accident and negligence actions, unless the Constitution or an applicable statute expressly provides otherwise.