Federal High Court Research Articles

A review of the powers of the federal inland revenue service vis-à-vis rights to privacy and information

On the 31st day of May, 2021 the Federal High Court in Nigeria issued a practice direction that is described as The Federal High Court of Nigeria (Federal Inland Revenue Service) Practice Direction, 2021 with 1st day of June, 2021 as its effective date of take-off. Since the publication was released, multiple debates on the constitutionality and legality of some of the provisions of the practice direction continue to generate concerns among taxpayers and the general public. This paper is an examination of the constitutionality or otherwise of the rights to privacy of taxpayers and issues regarding taxes in Nigeria. The paper made further examination of the powers of the FIRS to access tax payers records and the challenges of tax assessment by taxpayers, possible rights of the taxpayers and the responsibility of FIRS as the authorized revenue collecting body of the Federal Government of Nigeria among other related issues. The paper adopts the doctrinal methodology through the X-ray of primary and secondary sources with available data in the area. This paper finds that probing, searching and revenue generation concepts for proper tax administration of Nigeria and for the purpose of generating revenue and increasing the internally generated revenue of the nation and the rights to privacy of taxpayers and the rights of FIRS to administer tax in Nigeria needs to be regulated by the courts.

Navigating Jurisdictional Turbulence on Maritime and Civil Aviation Labour Claims in Nigeria: Federal High Court Versus National Industrial Court Controversie

Navigating Jurisdictional Turbulence on Maritime and Civil Aviation Labour Claims in Nigeria: Federal High Court Versus National Industrial Court Controversie

Judicial Interpretations, Findings and Pronouncements of the Nigerian Apex Court: A Review of Mohammed Vs Frn

Purpose: The objective of this review was to challenge the apex court's decision, encompassing its findings, judicial interpretations, and pronouncements (DFIP). A notable issue arises from the discovery that the National Assembly (NA) mistakenly granted 'exclusive' criminal jurisdiction to the Federal High Court (FHC) regarding Indian hemp offenses. Consequently, this study critically examined the DFIP in depth.
 Methodology: This work adopts the doctrinal method of research, which involves the use of primary and secondary sources of law. This study relied on key primary sources, including the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Acts of the National Assembly, case laws, and Decrees. Supplementary information was derived from secondary sources such as books and articles. This review extensively employed primary and secondary legal sources, focusing on statutory interpretation rules, the hierarchy of norms, particularly in relation to the principle of inconsistency, and the unalterable nature of jurisdiction prescribed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN). These criteria were systematically applied to evaluate the Decision, Findings, Interpretations, and Pronouncements (DFIP) of the apex court.
 Findings: The apex court's determination that Section 8 of the Indian Hemp Act (IHA) was implicitly repealed by Section 26 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) Act is inaccurate. Similarly, the assertion that the National Assembly (NA) granted 'exclusive' criminal jurisdiction to the Federal High Court (FHC) is flawed, as Section 251(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN) actually confers concurrent criminal jurisdiction on the FHC. 
 The finding of the apex court that Magistrate Courts (MC), being a creation of state legislation, cannot try Indian hemp offences is erroneous. The apex court's assertion that Indian hemp is both a 'drug' and a 'narcotic drug' is refuted as erroneous in the course of this review.
 Recommendations: Statutory intervention in the manner of amendment of Sections 251(1)(s) and 251(3) is required if the decision of the apex court is to represent the position of the law in Nigeria.

Has the Controversy on the Jurisdiction of Federal High Court over Unregistered Trade Marks Matters Finally Been Resolved?

The uncanny characteristics of unregistered trade marks (TM) and its enforceability in Nigerian courts leave a wild imagination as to its legal protection and the appropriate court to seek redress and enforcement. Not only is the status of unregistered TM shaky, there is also the question as to which court can enforce same. Thus, the coordinate adjudicatory powers of the Federal High Court and the State High Court have been put to test in this instance. A joint reading of the Nigerian Constitution and the Trade Marks Act seem to have robed the Federal High Court of its exclusive or unilateral original jurisdiction to hear and determine TM cases in general. Yet, these statutory provisions enjoin divergent judicial pronouncements for and against the courts in issue. This paper reviewed the statutory provisions on trademarks and passing off as well as the Supreme Court decisions on the issue with a view to determining whether the apex court has overruled itself in its earlier decisions, now generally conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Federal High Court, in respect of all matters relating to trademarks and passing off particularly for non registered TM.The paper concluded that the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue was predicated on the subsisting and applicable law then as well as the peculiar facts of the case and, therefore, not a clear departure from its earlier position on unregistered trademarks.

Jurisdiction Of National Industrial Court Of Nigeria On Human Rights Enforcement: A Legislative Necessity Or Nimiety

Human rights violation has become a matter of great concerns within the temple of administration of justice. The imperative need to expedite the process of adjudication of human rights infraction necessitated arrays of legislative reforms aimed at removing the attendant delays and clogs to pave way for quick and unhindered determination by courts. The reforms are particularly significant with respect to the expanded and expansive jurisdiction of National Industrial Court in the area of human rights infringement in work place. Though conceived to be in stark conflict with jurisdiction of Federal High Court and State High Court as vested by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) on questions of human rights enforcement, the reform of NIC’s jurisdiction propelled the contention as to whether it is a necessity or an overabundance. This conceptual analysis relied on both primary and secondary sources of data in the interrogation of the issues connected to the discourse. It found that the reform is welcomed as it widened access to justice in the stern realities of widespread human rights violation in work place in particular, which are now better handled by no other courts other than a specialized court like NIC. However, it is equally found that the fact that NIC would have to grapple with filtering its newly vested jurisdictional competence on human rights enforcement vis-à-vis the express provisions of the Constitution and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules (2009) which had hitherto vested exclusive jurisdiction on Federal High Court and State High Court on fundamental rights enforcement tone down the gains to mere nimiety. The paper concluded by making series of proposal for reforming the applicable laws in order to strike a balance between these extremes-‘necessity and nimiety’ as it relates to the jurisdiction of NIC on questions of labour related human rights cases by virtue of lessons learnt from Uganda and South Africa.

Kurdistan Regional Government’s Natural Resources Policy Formulation and Implementation Process

The process of public policy formulation is known to have significant role in making issues or solving them regardless of their makers. In particular, the policy making for a subject like managing natural resources has different impacts on the country. Recent studies have investigated either the negative or the positive sides of the KRG managing and marketing natural resources. In this article, all the related aspects of KRG natural resources policy such as policy formulation, level of KRG policy, causes and outcomes of the KRG oil policy is going to be discussed. In this qualitative study, content analysis approach is applied for obtaining secondary data to explain all the aspects of KRG Natural Resources Policy. For this purpose, 42 recent studies and books focusing on KRG Natural Resources policy are perused and discussed. Finally, this article concludes that KRG Oil and Gas Policy is a completely important subject to be studied for having influence on all the aspects of the Kurdistan Region and the Middle East energy and economy politics. Accordingly, the study calls for future research on how KRG can manage this sector with the existence of the Iraqi Federal High Court’s refusal decision.

Three years of minimum unit pricing in the Northern Territory, what does the evidence say?

Three years of minimum unit pricing in the Northern Territory, what does the evidence say?

Appraisal of the Jurisdictional Issues Confronting Prosecutors of Tax Related Disputes and Constitutional Bottlenecks

Purpose: This paper examines the jurisdictional issues confronting tax enforcements, prosecution and other related issues. Jurisdiction over taxes administered at both the federal and state levels is determined by the legal personality of the taxpayer and place of residence for individuals. The Federal High Court, State High Courts and Tax Appeal Tribunal are vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine tax disputes. The Tax Appeal Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from the operations of the Federal Inland Revenue Service. Tax disputes can be commenced either by the taxpayer or by the relevant tax authority. In practice, administrative channels within the relevant tax authority are usually the first step for resolution of tax disputes. Unresolved disputes proceed to the Tax Appeal Tribunal or Federal High Court, or where the tax is a State tax, to the State high court. The doctrinal research was used in carrying out this research.
 Methodology: Both secondary and primary sourced materials such as textbooks, journals, internets, case laws etc. were used.
 Finding: Finding reveals that there have been jurisdictional controversies confronting the constitutionality of TAT decision as well as the regular courts causing serious bottleneck for tax prosecutors.
 Recommendation: It is recommended that in order to ensure tax compliance, effective resolution of tax disputes and proper administration of tax system, the issue of jurisdiction must be clearly spelt out.

Determining the Exclusivity of the Jurisdiction of Federal High Court of Nigeria in Aviation Causes and Matters through the Laws

Determining the Exclusivity of the Jurisdiction of Federal High Court of Nigeria in Aviation Causes and Matters through the Laws

Determining the Exclusivity of the Jurisdiction of Federal High Court of Nigeria in Aviation Causes and Matters through the Laws

Determining the Exclusivity of the Jurisdiction of Federal High Court of Nigeria in Aviation Causes and Matters through the Laws

Comment: Court’s Reluctance to Safeguard Rights of the Accused in the Ethiopian Counter-terrorism Prosecutions and its Broader Implication

Ethiopia’s former and current anti-terrorism laws recognize information obtained through court authorized interception as evidence in counterterrorism prosecutions. This comment briefly examines Federal High Court rulings in two counterterrorism prosecutions where the accused challenged the admissibility of intercepted materials into evidence for not being obtained with court warrant. Though the objections in both cases could have been easily addressed by verifying whether a court warrant was in fact issued prior to intercepting the material in question, the court did not take this course of action. In one of the cases, the court presumed that a court warrant was issued; in the other it ignored the objection altogether and admitted the contested material into evidence. The comment can serve as a basis to undertake further research on whether the courts are doing justice in enforcing rights of the accused the safeguarding of which do not require constitutional interpretation. It might also invite investigation into its broader implication on whether the courts have the readiness to meet public and legal professionals’ expectation in safeguarding human rights were they empowered in the realm of constitutional interpretation.

JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEM IN ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION IN NIGERIA: LESSONS FROM NEW SOUTH WALES

An increase in industrial activities, especially in the oil and gas sector in Nigeria comes with the attendant rise in environmental abuses by multinational companies. Income from oil exploration is the major source of revenue for the Nigerian government. However, over the years, the activities of major oil companies in the oil-rich Niger Delta region have caused and continue to cause monumental damage to the local communities and indeed, the environment. Efforts by successive administrations to address this issue have yielded few results. This development means that victims of environmental abuse and indeed environmental activists have only the court to approach for any remedy. In Nigeria, it is only the Federal High Court that has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising from mines and minerals, including oil and gas exploration. Apart from the significant delay occasioned by congestion of cases, the composition of the Federal High Court has no regard for expert personnel in environmental science who are capable of giving informed decisions that would improve access to environmental justice. This article examines the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in relation to environmental matters and argues that the court as presently constituted is not better placed to ensure access to environmental justice. This article employs doctrinal legal research methodology and content analysis of both primary and secondary legal sources relating to the practice of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, and Land and Environment Court of New South Wales of Australia. The article argues in favour of establishing a specialised environmental court in Nigeria as a superior court with a comprehensive jurisdiction to dispose of environmental-related matters.

Use of Arbitration in the Settlement of Intellectual Property Disputes in Nigeria

Intellectual Property (IP) protects exclusive ownership, use and/or exploitation of IP rights. The infringement of the said rights give rise to disputes which can be settled by Arbitration. Arbitration is an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanism, which can be used in the settlement of Intellectual Property (IP) disputes by the agreement of the parties. This method of settling IP disputes is cheaper, faster, more confidential and encourages party autonomy than litigation. Pima facie, IP disputes are arbitrable, though in Nigeria there is no specific law on arbitrability of IP disputes, but there are instances or provisions within the Trademarks Act and Federal High Court Act which permit the deployment of Arbitration to such disputes. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre has settled several mediation and arbitration disputes. The confidential nature of arbitral proceeding has made it particularly advantageous for settling IP cases owing to the delicate nature of the information and documents involved.

A review of the court of appeal’s decision in Aliyu V. Federal republic of Nigeria & ORS

In 2017, the EFCC instituted an action at the Niger State High Court against Muazu Babaginda Aliyu, the former Governor of Niger State. While the case was still on and before it could be concluded, the EFCC instituted another case on money laundering at the Federal High Court, Abuja. The appellant believed that contrary to s. 36(9) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, it was a case of double jeopardy for both cases to be filed against him in relation to the same funds. The appellant’s argument was founded on the belief that the charges of conspiracy and conversion of ecological funds filed at the State High Court were one and the same with the charges of money laundering at the Federal High Court. The appellant also argued that the Federal High Court was the court with jurisdiction and not the State High Court. He raised an objection on both issues at the State High Court but was ruled against leading to an approach of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal was then faced with the task of (i) distinguishing between the charges filed at both courts (ii) deciding which court had jurisdiction to entertain the charges (iii) determine whether there was a case of double jeopardy.

Jurisdiction for intellectual property in Nigeria: the Supreme Court may be final but not infallible

Jurisdiction is the fulcrum of any court or legislature. Jurisdiction for statutory intellectual property in Nigeria is vested in the centre in a federal system of government where legislative and adjudicatory powers are shared between federal and constituent governments. Historically, the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court (FHC) and State High Court (SHC) has been notoriously ambivalent in many issues – passing off being one of them. The passing off of intellectual property has been particularly problematic because of its common law origin and nature especially in the absence of a federal statute on it. This article reviews three different decisions of the Nigerian Supreme Court over time and argues that the Supreme Court may not have considered the ramifications of the different constitutions in those cases. It argues the position that the FHC should not exercise jurisdiction over passing off of intellectual property (common law tort) until there is a federal statute creating a substantive law on passing off. The jurisdiction lies with the SHC. It supports this position with the 1999 Constitution, state laws on torts as existing laws and the experience of Canada and the United States, and hopes the Supreme Court will, at the earliest opportunity, overrule or correct itself; or that the legislature will intervene.

Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court: a Critique of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in TSKJ Nigeria Limited Vs. Otochem Nigeria Limited (2018) 11 N.W.L.R [Pt. 1630] 330

Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court: a Critique of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in TSKJ Nigeria Limited Vs. Otochem Nigeria Limited (2018) 11 N.W.L.R [Pt. 1630] 330

Re-evaluating the Admiralty Jurisdiction of Nigeria's Federal High Court in the Age of Combined Transport Shipping

AbstractThis article critically examines the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court of Nigeria in relation to claims arising from combined transport shipping. It questions the rationale for the continued circumscription of the court's admiralty jurisdiction to activities on navigable waters based on English law pedigree. It argues that, in the present era of containerization and combined transport shipping, it has become imperative to unshackle Nigerian courts from English antecedents that limit the admiralty jurisdiction of the court to activities on the high seas. The article identifies extant national legislation, a continental instrument and recent judicial authorities that provide the basis for expanding the Federal High Court's admiralty jurisdiction to accommodate the adjudication of claims derived from combined transport shipping beyond the locale of the high seas.

Judicial Intervention in Arbitration: Unresolved Jurisdictional Issues Concerning Arbitrator Appointments in Nigeria

AbstractParties find it difficult to determine which Nigerian High Court should intervene in the appointment of arbitrators due to conflicting judicial precedents. This perennial challenge has defied any legal solution. Considering relevant case law, this article examines the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA) vis-à-vis the Nigerian Constitution. The main argument is that the Nigerian Constitution read alongside the ACA confers the Federal High Court with additional jurisdiction to appoint arbitrators regardless of which court has jurisdiction concerning the underlying dispute. There are also uncertainties regarding the intervention jurisdiction of Nigeria's National Industrial Court to appoint arbitrators. Currently, no other court can exercise intervention jurisdiction in employment disputes. This article analyses recent decisions of the National Industrial Court and argues that this Court can only intervene to appoint arbitrators where both parties request the appointment in a pending action before the Court. It is also argued that decisions concerning the appointment of arbitrators through judicial intervention can be appealed.

Ude Jones Udeogu v FRN & Ors no SC. 622C/2019: its implication on fighting financial crime and the way forward

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show how fighting financial crime suffered a setback in Nigeria as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in an appeal case – Ude Jones Udeogu v FRN and Ors no SC. 622C/2019. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a critical analysis of the implication of Supreme Courts’ ruling in Ude Udeogu Jones, its implication to law enforcement’s effort in fighting financial crime and the way to get around the ruling. The paper adopts qualitative methods. It is conducted through the analysis of the ruling and the relevant laws. Findings Due to the ruling in UdeUdeogu Jones, Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 is no longer good law. Federal High Court judges elevated to the Court of Appeal no longer have special dispensation to conclude criminal cases they part heard. Furthermore, the ruling is a serious setback on the law enforcement’s efforts in fighting corruption. However, the drastic effect of the ruling can be mitigated by amending Section 396(7). Research limitations/implications Because the ruling is very recent, analysis is based on the relevant enactments and case laws including recent decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Originality/value There is no comprehensive work on this ruling. Therefore, this paper adds value to knowledge as it makes clear the background of the appeal case, as well as the impact of the ruling of the Supreme Court on fighting financial crime in Nigeria and the way to get around the ruling.

The Jurisdictional Dispute Over Seafarer Wages: Revisiting the Decision of the Court of Appeal in the Vessel Sam Purpose (Ex Mt. Tapti) & Anor. V. Amarjeet Singh Bains & 6 Ors.

Until recently, disputes over payment or non-payment of seafarer wages were characterized as a Maritime lien enforceable by an action in rem under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. However, the decision of the Court of Appeal in The Vessel Sam Purpose (EX MT. TAPTI) & Anor. V. Amarjeet Singh Bains & 6 Ors appears to have altered the previously settled position of the law. In that case, the Court of Appeal in its wisdom, held that by the provisions of Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), it is the National Industrial Court that has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes for unpaid crew wages. One of the implications of this decision is that crew wages are no longer a part of maritime claims under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. It also means that Sections 2(3) (r) and 5(3)(c ) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act that listed crew wages as a maritime claim are no longer tenable under the law. This paper shall revisit the decision of the Court of Appeal in The Vessel Sam Purpose and compare it with the legally acceptable definition and scope of admiralty jurisdiction in order to show where the Court missed the point in its determination of the jurisdictional dispute over the wages of seafarers. Rather than finding that Section 254C (1) (a) and (k) of the Constitution divested the Federal High Court of jurisdiction over claims for seafarer's wages, this paper proposes that the Court of Appeal ought to have applied the purposive rule of statutory interpretation to Sections 251 (1) (g) and 254C (1) of the Constitution, to the effect that where unpaid seafarer’s wages is the subject matter of a suit, such action will invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court if it is instituted in rem, but where it is commenced in personam, the National Industrial Court will have exclusive jurisdiction.