NIGERIA MARITIME ADMINISTRATION AND SAFETY AGENCY V. THE HON. CAPTAIN EMMANUEL IHENACHO & ORS. (2026)

Background

The appeal concerned the limits of an appellate court’s power to cure a jurisdictional defect by transferring proceedings to another court. Captain Emmanuel Ihenacho and Integrated Oil and Gas Limited commenced Suit No. LD/ADR/91/2013 at the High Court of Lagos State against the Nigeria Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) and the other respondents. Their claims included damages of approximately N90.349 billion, interest, injunctive relief requiring the publication of a retraction and apology, and costs.

NIMASA and the other defendants raised preliminary objections. NIMASA argued, among other things, that the High Court of Lagos State lacked jurisdiction because the Federal High Court was the proper forum; that the suit constituted an abuse of court process; that it was statute-barred; and that certain necessary parties had not been joined. The High Court of Lagos State dismissed the jurisdictional objection and held that the remaining issues, including limitation and non-joinder, were better considered at trial or during case management.

NIMASA appealed. The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, agreed that the Lagos State High Court lacked jurisdiction, set aside the trial court’s ruling, but proceeded to transfer the suit to the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, for accelerated hearing and determination. The Court of Appeal relied on section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act and section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act, 2005 (as amended). NIMASA challenged only the consequential transfer order before the Supreme Court, contending that the Court of Appeal could not make an order which the Lagos State High Court itself had no jurisdiction to make.

Issue

The central issue was whether, after finding that the High Court of Lagos State lacked jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal could invoke section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to transfer the action to the Federal High Court, notwithstanding binding Supreme Court authority declaring section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act unconstitutional and void.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the transfer order was made without jurisdiction. The general rule is that where a court lacks jurisdiction over a cause or matter, the proper order is to strike out the proceedings. A court cannot assume jurisdiction merely because transferring the case would be convenient or would enable the dispute to be determined on its merits.

The Court distinguished the statutory position applicable to the Federal High Court. Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act validly permits the Federal High Court, where appropriate, to transfer a matter to a State High Court or to the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory when the matter was brought in the wrong forum. That provision does not create a reciprocal power in State High Courts to transfer matters to the Federal High Court.

Section 22(3), which purported to empower a State High Court to transfer a case to the Federal High Court, had already been declared unconstitutional and void in Fasakin Foods (Nig.) Ltd. v. Shosanya. The National Assembly could not legislate on the practice and procedure of a State High Court in a manner that encroached on the constitutional legislative competence of the relevant State House of Assembly. Since the Lagos State High Court had no statutory or procedural rule authorising the transfer, it could only strike out the suit.

The Court further held that section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, although broad and capable of empowering the Court of Appeal to make necessary orders for the determination of an appeal, could not be used to confer jurisdiction where none existed. The Court of Appeal could not exercise a power indirectly when the trial court was constitutionally barred from exercising that power directly.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the overriding objective of determining cases on their merits justified the transfer. Procedural efficiency cannot override constitutional limits on jurisdiction. The Court also reaffirmed that cases are authorities only for what they actually decided in the factual and legal context in which they were decided. Consequently, reliance on decisions permitting transfers in different circumstances, such as transfers from the Federal High Court to another competent Federal Court, did not support the impugned order.

The Court relied particularly on the reasoning in Fasakin Foods and N.N.P.C. v. Alabi, which reaffirmed that the Court of Appeal cannot use its statutory powers to do what a State High Court is constitutionally unable to do.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed NIMASA’s appeal and set aside the Court of Appeal’s order transferring the respondents’ suit to the Federal High Court for accelerated hearing and determination. Having found that the High Court of Lagos State lacked jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal ought to have struck out the suit. All five Justices agreed with the leading judgment delivered by Adumein, J.S.C.

Significance

This decision provides an important clarification of jurisdictional procedure in Nigeria. It confirms that the power to transfer proceedings is not inherent in every court and must derive from a valid constitutional or statutory provision, or from applicable rules of court. Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act permits a transfer outward from the Federal High Court to an appropriate State or Federal Capital Territory High Court, but section 22(3) cannot validly support a transfer from a State High Court to the Federal High Court. The judgment also limits the scope of section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act: that provision enables the Court of Appeal to exercise powers necessary for effective appellate justice, but it does not authorise the creation of jurisdiction or the circumvention of constitutional restrictions. Litigants who commence proceedings in a court lacking jurisdiction therefore risk having the action struck out rather than transferred, unless a valid legal mechanism expressly permits transfer.