Background
In 2008 the Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court (1st respondent) initiated an originating summons at the Federal High Court, Lagos (suit No. FHC/L/CS/518/2008) against Major General Nlenchukwu Chikwe (appellant) and three federal agencies (2nd–4th respondents). The summons challenged the alleged ultra vires sale and alienation of property known as No. 12 Cameron Road, Ikoyi-Lagos, allocated in 1996 as an official residence for Federal High Court Judges. The 1st respondent sought declarations that the allocation remained in force, that any sale or transfer was null, void and of no effect, perpetual injunctions against further dealings, and vesting of possession in the Federal High Court.
The trial court found the purported sale unlawful and granted those remedies. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal (CA/L/371/2012), which dismissed his appeal on 25 November 2016. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Competence of the issue of jurisdiction raised for the first time on appeal.
- Subject-matter jurisdiction of the Federal High Court over administrative actions relating to federal land.
- Locus standi and juristic status of the Chief Registrar to sue on behalf of the Federal High Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court unanimously held:
- Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is a threshold issue that may be raised at any stage, even for the first time on appeal and even suo motu. A court must guard against exercising power it does not have; nonetheless, the Federal High Court properly exercised jurisdiction under section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution to determine the validity of federal administrative actions without excluding those concerning land.
- Jurisdictional findings not appealed: Findings of fact by the trial court not challenged on appeal remain binding. The appellant did not dispute the trial court’s finding that the 4th respondent acted ultra vires in alienating the property; those findings were therefore affirmed.
- Public Officers Protection Act: Does not protect public officers who act beyond statutory authority. The 4th respondent’s alienation was ultra vires, so the limitation period in that Act did not bar the suit.
- Locus Standi: The Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court is a juristic person created by statute (Federal High Court Act section 46) and vested by rule and by special order of the Chief Judge with authority to sue or be sued on behalf of the court. Any minor misnomer in the party’s style is amendable.
Court Findings
The Court struck out the 4th respondent’s brief as incompetent for abandoning its traditional defensive role. It also struck out three of the appellant’s six formulated issues for want of foundation in the grounds of appeal or absence of leave of court. The remaining issues—jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction and locus standi—were fully argued and resolved against the appellant.
On jurisdiction, the Court held that s. 251(1)(r) confers exclusive power on the Federal High Court to entertain any challenge to federal administrative actions or decisions, including those relating to land.
On locus standi, judicial notice of the Chief Registrar’s statutory and administrative powers confirmed capacity to represent the Federal High Court. The brief misdescription ‘‘Chief Registrar (Federal High Court)’’ did not affect his character as a juristic person.
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed both the trial and appellate decisions. The appellant must bear his own costs; each party bears its own costs at appellate levels.
Significance
This decision confirms that: (a) Federal High Court jurisdiction under the Constitution to adjudicate federal administrative actions is unrestricted by subject matter including land disputes; (b) jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of litigation; (c) public officers cannot invoke statutory limitation when acting beyond powers; and (d) statutory officers such as the Chief Registrar have inherent locus standi as juristic persons to protect their court’s property interests.