OJAMIREN V. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA (2022)

Background

In this case, Jude Ojamiren (the Appellant) filed an action against the Federal Government of Nigeria and several other respondents regarding a property located at 7E, Okoro-Otun Avenue, G.R.A., Edo State. The Appellant claimed ownership of this land based on a statutory right of occupancy. He alleged that he had been in peaceful possession until the respondents interfered with his ownership rights. The trial court initially ruled on the admissibility of documents and subsequently raised the issue of jurisdiction on its own without inviting the parties for their input, eventually striking out the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

The issues under consideration were:

1. Whether the trial Judge was correct to raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu and strike out the Appellant's case without affording the parties an opportunity to address the court.
2. Whether the trial Judge mischaracterized the dispute as one between the Edo State Government and the Federal Government, disregarding the Appellant's individual status.
3. Whether the trial Judge was correct in stating that the original jurisdiction over such disputes rested solely with the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the Appellant, asserting that:

1. No court has the authority to raise an issue suo motu without inviting parties for their input, which constitutes a denial of fair hearing.
2. The exclusive jurisdiction over land matters as stipulated by Section 39 of the Land Use Act lies with the State High Court, thereby making the trial court's determination erroneous.
3. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction in disputes involving private citizens and government bodies; thus, the lower court's judgment was flawed.

Court Findings

The Court found that:

1. The trial court's action of striking out the case for want of jurisdiction was improper since the issue had not been properly raised nor debated by the parties involved.
2. The Appellant's claim did not present a dispute between the Edo State Government and the Federal Government as alleged by the trial court.
3. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is confined to disputes between states or the federation, not individual claims involving land rights.

Conclusion

Thus, the appeal was allowed, the ruling made by the Edo State High Court on March 19, 2019, was set aside, and the matter was remitted for trial de novo to a different Judge.

Significance

This case serves as a landmark decision regarding the principles of fair hearing within court proceedings, particularly concerning the raising of jurisdictional issues by the court without the involvement of parties. It reinforces the necessity to afford litigants the right to be heard before a court makes determinations that significantly affect their claims, establishing key precedents in land law and constitutional jurisdiction.