Background
In 2007, the Federal Airport Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) invited bids for the installation, operation and management of common use terminal equipment (CUTE) at four major airports. Maevis Limited emerged the successful bidder and entered into a contract with FAAN on October 31, 2007. A dispute arose between Maevis and FAAN, prompting Maevis to sue FAAN at the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/SC/1155/2010. While that suit was pending, FAAN terminated Maevis’s contract by letter dated March 24, 2011, and awarded a new contract for the same services to SITA. Maevis claimed that SITA induced FAAN to breach its subsisting agreement and commenced a separate action against SITA and its Nigerian affiliate (collectively “the respondents”) at the Federal High Court, Lagos, seeking declarations, injunctive reliefs and ₦5 billion in general damages for wrongful inducement to breach contract.
Issues
- Whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a claim for tortious inducement of breach of contract under section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution?
- Whether a claim in tort arising from an aviation‐related contract falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under item (k) (Aviation and safety of aircraft)?
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that:
- Jurisdiction is conferred by statute or the Constitution and is determined by the plaintiff’s claim as framed in the writ and statement of claim.
- Section 251(1)(k) of the Constitution grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal High Court over civil matters concerning the safety of aircraft and aviation activities proper, not every dispute touching an aviation‐related contract.
- Claims in simple contract or tort, even if connected to an aviation contract, do not fall within the specific heads of jurisdiction enumerated in section 251(1), and thus lie within the purview of State High Courts.
Court Findings
The Court examined precedents including Ports & Cargo Handling Services Co. Ltd v. Migfo Nig. Ltd and Adekan v. Ecu‐Line NV, which consistently establish that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction over simple contract and tort claims. The Court found that Maevis’s action was a private tort claim to recover damages for inducing breach of contract, and not an action to enforce an aviation safety or operational regulation. Consequently, the cause of action did not arise from the safety of aircraft or aviation operations envisaged by section 251(1)(k).
Conclusion
By a unanimous judgment delivered on January 17, 2025, Chief Justice Chidi Nwaoma Uwa dismissed Maevis’s appeal, affirming that the trial Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction. The suit was ordered to be transferred to the Lagos State High Court. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Significance
This decision clarifies the limited and enumerated nature of the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction under section 251 of the Constitution. It underscores that mere connection to an aviation contract does not confer Federal High Court jurisdiction over tortious or simple contract claims, which remain within the jurisdiction of State High Courts.