Concurrent Jurisdiction of Federal High Court and High Court of a State & FCT over Applications for the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights

It is settled law that, going by section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), a High Court existing within the territorial jurisdiction of a state where a contravention of any of the provisions of the Chapter 4 of the Constitution is alleged has the power and jurisdiction to entertain a law suit brought for the enforcement of such breach. This is as captured under section 46(1) of the Constitution which provides that:

“46(1) Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court for redress.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a High Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made to it in pursuance of the provisions of this section and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement within that state of any right to which the person who makes the application may be entitled under this chapter.

Further to this, the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement procedure) Rules 2009 explicitly defines the Court which has the jurisdiction to hear an application for the enforcement of fundamental Rights to mean “the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja” — see Order 1 rule 2 of the FREP Rules.

In the case, following his detainment by the Appellant, the Respondent approached the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory for the enforcement of his Fundamental Rights.  To that effect, the contention of the Appellant was that, by the virtue of section 251(1) of the Constitution and of which the Defendant “EFCC” at the trial Court (now the Appellant) is a federal body, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent's enforcement of fundamental right.

The Supreme Court, while determining the substance of the appeal, noted that, while sections 33—46 of the Constitution sets the various fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of Nigeria, section 46(1) thereof equally provides for where to channel any grievance against the breach of any of the contents of sections 33—46 thereof. And by that virtue, section 46(1) lucidly state that a person who wants redress for the violation of any of his Fundamental Rights contained under the Chapter 4 of the Constitution has the right to approach “a High Court" existing in that state without any restriction or specifying the High Court in that respect. The Court stated that:

Section 46(1)provides that any person who alleges that any of the provisions of the Chapter (i.e. Chapter IV) has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him, may apply to a High Court for redress. The High Courts are established by Section 249– Federal High Court;254A (1)–The National Industrial Court; the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory –Section 255 (1); and the High Court of a state –Section 270 (1).

The Court hereby held that both the Federal High Court and the High Court of states including that of the FCT all have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain, hear and determine civil suits wherein the main claim borders on the enforcement of the applicant's fundamental rights. The Court thus posited that:

So long as the enforcement of the applicant’s fundamental right is the main claim in the suit and not an ancillary claim, the Federal High Court and State High Courts, including the High Court of the FCT, have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain it.

The Court also noted that, the enforcement of Fundamental Rights is one that is sui generis in nature and as such, the issue of whether one of the parties involved is a federal body cannot and will not serve as a clog against the High of a State and that of the FCT from exercising concurrent jurisdiction alongside Federal High Court.

In a coda, the implication of the holdings of the Court is that, a party, in the process of seeking redress for the breach of his fundamental rights has the liberty to approach any of the High Court contemplated under Order 1, Rule 2 of the FREP Rules, 2009, i.e. any of the Federal High Court or the High Court of a State or the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.

 

By:

Qosim Muhibudeen A.

(Deputy Chief Registrar, Solace Chambers—BUK).