Holden at Abuja
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/8th-Annual-Conference-of-the-Nigeria-ILA.jpg")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
On Friday, the 28th day of February, 2025
Before Their Lordships
Uwani Musa Abba Aji
Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa
Emmanuel Akomaye Agim
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme
Jamilu Yammama Tukur
Justices, Supreme Court
SC/CV/1174A/2024
SC/CV/1174/2024
SC/CV/1175/2024
SC/CV/1176/2024
SC/CV/1177/2024
SC/CV/1174B/2024
SC/CV/1175A/2024
SC/CV/68/2025
Between
- RIVERS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
- THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MARTIN CHIKE APPELLANTS
AMAEWHULE (THE HONOURABLE SPEAKER,
RIVERS STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY)
And
- THE GOVERNMENT OF RIVERS STATE
- RIVERS STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL
COMMISSION
- HON. JUSTICE ADOLPHUS ENEBELI (RTD)
(CHAIRMAN, RIVERS STATE INDEPENDENT
ELECTORAL COMMISSION)
- CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
- ZENITH BANK PLC.
- ACCESS BANK PLC. RESPONDENTS
- ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
- THE GOVERNOR OF RIVERS STATE
(SIR SIMINALAYI FUBARA)
- THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE
- HON. JUSTICE S.C. AMADI
(THE CHIEF JUDGE OF RIVERS STATE)
(Lead Judgement delivered by Honourable Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC)
Facts
The Appellants commenced an action (by Originating Summons) against the Respondents at the Federal High Court, Abuja in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024, claiming inter alia, a declaration that the 1st Defendant (Central Bank of Nigeria) is not entitled to release any amount, money, fund or revenue standing to the credit of Rivers State in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Rivers State domiciled at the Central Bank of Nigeria, including all allocations and revenue receipts from the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) due to Rivers State from the Federation Account or from any other source to the 2nd Defendant or any other bank, being the commercial bank of Rivers State Government or any other person until the fund has been duly charged with the relevant expenditure by an Appropriation Law duly made by the House of Assembly of Rivers State. They also sought various orders and injunction against the Defendants from withdrawing funds in the Consolidated Revenue Funds or other accounts, until an Appropriation Law for the 2024 Financial Year has been duly made by the 1st Appellant. The Appellants, as Plaintiffs, posed various questions for determination of the court, bordering on construction of the provisions of Sections 1(1), (2); 120(2), (3) and (4); 197; 122 and 287(3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Section 10 of the Rivers State Local Government Election Tribunal Law.
Upon consideration of submissions by Counsel on the affidavits and addresses, the trial court delivered judgement in favour of the Plaintiffs (as Appellants herein), granting them the reliefs sought. The 8th Respondent in this appeal, who was dissatisfied with the judgement, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. The appellate court allowed the appeal on the ground that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit, and struck it out. On the merits however, the court dismissed the appeal.
The Appeal No. SC/CV/1174/2024 is against the judgement of the Court of Appeal. Various Cross-appeals against the judgement were equally filed. The crux of the Cross-appeals relate to locus standi of the Plaintiffs to sue; legitimacy of the 2nd Appellant and other 26 members who defected as members of the 1st Appellant; affirmation of the decision of the trial court on the merits of the appeal, and refusal to invoke the doctrine of necessity regarding the Constitution of the Rivers State House of Assembly; appeals against the decision that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and appeal by the 5th Respondent on the concurrent decision that the Irrevocable Standing Orders issued by the 1st Respondent in its favour are contracts and cannot override statutory and constitutional provisions. Preliminary objections were also raised challenging the competence of the appeal for being academic and ground 5 of the appeal for failure to seek and obtain leave before filing same.
The parties consented that, the decision in Appeal No. SC/CV/1174/2024 shall bind the other appeals listed.
Issue(s) for Determination
The following issues were considered by the court:
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly held that the trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain and determine Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2024.
Issue in the Cross-appeal:
Whether Sections 102 and 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of necessity, give validity to the proceedings of the Rivers State House of Assembly constituted by less than one third of all the members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and the actions of the Government of Rivers State on the basis of such proceedings.
Arguments
The Appellants’ position is that all funds accruable to the Government of Rivers State, whether situated in the Federation Account and/or in the Consolidated Revenue Fund or flowing from Internally Generated Revenue, or from other private sources, in as long as such fund or revenue is within the custody and liable to be disbursed by the Central Bank of Nigeria (an agency of the Federal Government), this vests jurisdiction to halt the release of such funds or revenue exclusively in the trial Federal High Court. The argument against the position of the Appellants is to the effect that the Appellants did not situate any of all their reliefs within the ambit of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, so as to confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court.
Regarding the issue in the Cross-appeal, Counsel for the Cross-Appellant submitted that the 2nd Appellant and other 26 others were no longer members of the House of Assembly of Rivers State, having defected from the political party on which they were elected as members of the Rivers State House of Assembly to another, thereby actuating the provisions of Section 109(1)(g) of the Constitution. Counsel argued that the 2nd Appellant and 26 others automatically vacated their seats, leaving just four valid members of the House of Assembly. He argued that by the foregoing, the doctrine of necessity creeps in, to help salvage the unsavoury constitutional imbroglio where the State Government would be grounded to a halt. Further, that Sections 91, 96 and 98 of the 1999 Constitution conceive of only legitimate members sitting in the House of Assembly and the only way out would be to ensure that, out of necessity, the Rivers State House of Assembly continues to function with its legitimate four members. The 1st and 2nd Cross-Respondent countered the submissions above, arguing that the facts and circumstances of this case do not warrant the application of the doctrine of necessity. Counsel posited that any perceived incapacitation of the Rivers State House of Assembly, only exists in the mind of the Cross-Appellant. This is more so, as the courts have acknowledged membership of the 26 members of the House of Assembly and the leadership of the 2nd Appellant.
Court’s Judgement and Rationale
The Court considered and decided the Preliminary Objections, before delving into the appeal. Regarding the objection of the 1st Respondent that the suit leading to this appeal which sought to stop the release of funds belonging to Rivers State to the 1st and 8th Respondent without the proper appropriation process is academic, since the 2024 financial year had lapsed on 31st December 2024, the Supreme Court held that the reliefs in the Originating Summons are not limited to release of funds under the 2024 Appropriation Law of Rivers State, but extends until an appropriation law has been duly made by the House of Assembly of Rivers State. The suit also questioned the proper construction of provisions of the Constitution and enforcement of valid and subsisting orders/judgement of courts of record in Nigeria. The issues in the appeal were, therefore, unceasingly live constitutional and issues of law. With respect to the objection about competence of ground 5 of the appeal, Their Lordships considered the complaint in the ground which touches on decision of the Court of Appeal that the suit is outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, and held that the issue is one of jurisdiction and pure law which does not require seeking and obtaining leave of court by virtue of Section 233(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.
Deciding the issue in the main appeal, the Supreme Court considered the questions and reliefs sought in the Originating Summons, particularly the Order of injunction restraining the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant-General of the Federation from releasing funds belonging to the Rivers State to the Government without a valid Appropriation Law, which is an executive or administrative action or decision of the relevant Federal Government agencies. The court also took into consideration that, the suit leading to the present appeal was filed by the Appellants to enforce compliance with judgement in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/1613/2023, filed earlier by the Appellants, following the persistent refusal of the 8th Respondent to comply with the judgement in that suit. In that suit, which went on appeal to the Court of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024 (Governor of Rivers State v Rivers State House of Assembly & Ors (2024) LPELR-62961(CA)), the appellate court had decided that by Section 91 of the 1999 Constitution, representation in the House of Assembly of the States is based on constituencies which ensures adequate representation of each part of the geographical entity in the area. Also, by Section 96 of the 1999 Constitution, the quorum of the House of Assembly shall be one third of the members of the House; thus, 4 out of 31 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly could not have validly passed the Appropriation Bill presented to them by the 8th Respondent. The court therefore, ordered that the Appropriation Bill be re-presented to the Rivers State House of Assembly led by the 2nd Appellant, having earlier decided in Appeal No. CA/PH/198/2024 that the 2nd Appellant and other members of his group are still members of the House of Assembly.
The Supreme Court concluded on this issue, that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit relating to administrative actions or decisions of Federal Government agencies under Section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution and relating to enforcement of compliance with its earlier judgement or that of any superior court in Nigeria, in line with Section 287(2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution.
The issue in the Cross-appeal, is whether Sections 102 and 109(1)(g) of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of necessity give validity to the proceedings of the Rivers State House of Assembly constituted by less than the constitutionally required one-third of all the members of the House, and the action of the 1st Respondent on the basis of such proceedings. The court noted first that the appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgement of the Court of Appeal in CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024 was withdrawn and dismissed by the court, leaving the judgement of the Court of Appeal as conclusive and binding.
Deciding the applicability of the doctrine of necessity, the Supreme Court looked at the events leading to the suit. The court noted that the Cross-Appellant, under a perceived fear of being impeached by the Rivers State House of Assembly, employed various measures to ensure that the House of Assembly could not sit with complete members or a constitutionally prescribed quorum, by arranging for initially 4 members and subsequently 3 members to sit as Rivers State House of Assembly outside the legislative building. The Appropriation Bill was presented to the four members who passed same, and the Governor assented the Appropriation Bill within 24 hours. The Governor removed the Clerk and Deputy Clerk of the House and pulled down the legislative building, preventing members of the House and other staff from accessing the House of Assembly Complex to perform their official duties. He carried on in these actions in disobedience of interim restraining orders of court obtained by the 27 members of the House of Assembly, and subsequent judgement of court in their favour. This judgement was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, but the Cross-Appellant persisted in the disobedience, leading to the suit resulting in this appeal.
The Cross-Appellant did not place before the court any reason why he acted in the manner and carried out the acts enumerated above, among others. The Supreme Court held that the resort by the Cross-Appellant to Sections 102 and 109 of the 1999 Constitution and the doctrine of necessity on the basis of allegation of defection is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the Constitution and democratic government in Rivers State. The doctrine of necessity applies to genuine situations that were not contemplated in the provisions of the Constitution or any law, which situation require the taking of some legitimate extra constitutional or extra legal actions to protect public interest. The doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked to justify the continued existence of a deliberate contrived illegal or constitutional status quo. The Cross-appeal was thereby dismissed.
The Supreme Court ordered the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Attorney-General to stop releasing funds to the 1st Respondent and its organs until an Appropriation law is made in compliance with the 1999 Constitution; and that the 2nd Appellant and other 26 members and other elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly, resume sitting.
Appeal Allowed.
The decision in SC/CV/1174/2024 to bind SC/CV/1174A/2024, SC/CV/1174B/2024 SC/CV/1175/2024, SC/CV/1175A/2024, SC/CV/1176/2024, SC/CV/1177/2024 and SC/CV/68/2025; Costs of N5million Naira against the 1st and 8th Respondent to the Appellants.
Representation
J.B. Daudu, SAN; Prof. S.T. Hon, SAN; Dr. Onoja, SAN; M.A. Ebute, SAN; Adedayo Adedeji, SAN; and Paul B. Daudu, SAN with Others for the Appellants.
Chief Chris Uche, SAN; Gordy Uche, SAN; Jeph C. Njikonye, SAN; Samuel Atung, SAN and Damian Okoro, SAN with Others for the 1st Respondent in SC/CV/1174 and Cross Appellant in SC/CV/1174A.
Tayo Oyetibo, SAN; Femi Falana, SAN; O.M. Atoyebi, SAN; and Mofesomo with Ors. for the 2nd & 3rd Respondent in SC/CV/1174 and Cross-Appellant in SC/1174B.
J.J. Usaman, SAN with Others for the 4th Respondent.
Chief Emeka Obegolu, SAN with Others for the 5th Respondent in SC/1174 and Appellant in SC/CV/68/2025.
Prof Yusuf Ali, SAN; Adebayo Adelodun, SAN; Paul Erokoro, SAN; K.K. Eleja, SAN; and Lukman Fagbemi, SAN with Others for the 1st Respondent in SC/CV/1174 and Cross-Appellant in SC/1175A.
I.A. Adedipe, SAN; Tuduru U. Ede, SAN; Yemi Adeshina, SAN and T.J. Aondo, SAN for the 9th Respondent.
Reported by Optimum Publishers Limited, Publishers of the Nigerian Monthly Law Reports (NMLR)(An affiliate of Babalakin & Co.)
Revolutionizing Legal Research: "Civil Litigation Serial" and "Encyclopedia of Nigerian Case Law" Now Available
"Civil Litigation Serial" and "Encyclopedia of Nigerian Case Law Principles and Authorities" are must-have resources for legal practitioners, offering comprehensive insights into civil litigation and case law principles. The first volumes are now available for purchase through independent booksellers across Nigeria. Call 07051822705 to get your copies today! ______________________________________________________________________ Grab Your Complete Law Reports Now!!! IP, Company, Evidence & Land Cases - All Volumes With Digital Index!!!
To get a copy kindly Call 07044444777, 07044444999, 08181999888, https://alexandernigeria.com/ ______________________________________________________________________
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
