Pollution Discharge Fee: An Ascertainment Of The Monetary Criminal Jurisdiction Of The Revenue Court Of Akwa Ibom State Over Corporate Persons
By David Andy Essien, Esq.*; Ekemini Nseabasi Okpoiso, Esq.**; And Iniubong Idongesit Moses, Esq.***
INTRODUCTION:
Jurisdiction is the root of adjudication and it is axiomatic and in sync with common sense and reasoning that when the root ceases to stand, the stem and branches will fall with the root. This reality informs our decision to embark upon this voyage of ascertaining the monetary criminal jurisdiction of the Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State over corporate persons.
Let us hasten to state that it has been suggested elsewhere by the learned author, David Andy Essien [1], that the Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State (hereinafter referred to as “the Revenue Court”) is completely bereft of jurisdiction to entertain cases of non-payment of Pollution Discharge Fee and that such jurisdiction is resident in the Environmental Sanitation Court of Akwa Ibom State. We agree, without reservations, with the views expressed by the said author.
We further state that even when the Revenue Court intermeddles with the issue of non-payment of Pollution Discharge Fee by corporate persons, the enabling law establishing the Revenue Court and the law providing for the payment of Pollution Discharge Fee places the competence to hear and determine such an issue outside the monetary jurisdictional reach of the Revenue Court.
In this article, we seek to lay bare, in no uncertain terms, an answer to the unending and intractable question of the limit of the monetary criminal jurisdiction of the Revenue Court over corporate persons.
IS IT LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE AND/OR PARDONABLE FOR A COURT TO EXCEED ITS MONETARY JURISDICTION?
Jurisdiction is the ground zero of the entire adjudicatory process. Like a deserter in the military, a court that exceeds its monetary jurisdiction is a loner and on a frolic of its own. Such frolicking is equivalent to a player rushing to score a goal before a football match is commenced. The end product, sadly, is that no football match is played and no goal is scored. We cannot resist what the Apex Court said on this issue in the case of DR. EDWIN UDEMEGBUNAM ONWUDIWE V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (2006) 4 SCNJ 350 at p. 378, paras. 5 – 10 (SC). Speaking through the pen and lips of the illustrious jurist, Honourable Justice Niki Tobi, JSC, the Apex Court correctly espoused the law in these lines:
“In criminal law and the administration of justice, the determination of jurisdiction will be taken in the light of the enabling law setting out the jurisdiction of the court vis-à-vis the charge preferred against the accused. In other words, in order to have jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied that the offence or crime is directly donated by the jurisdiction conferred on the court in the enabling law. Where the offence or crime is outside the enabling law, the court cannot exercise jurisdiction because it lacks jurisdiction to do so.” (Underlining ours, for emphasis)
At pages 380 – 381, paragraphs 35 – 10 of the above case, the said Law Lord concluded:
“A party cannot beg or bargain jurisdiction into a matter before a court of law; so too the adverse party cannot beg or bargain jurisdiction outside or out of a matter. Jurisdiction is an exact law that has to be applied exactly to any given case. It is either a court has jurisdiction in a matter or it has not. There is no hybrid situation. There is no half way to this straight and unambiguous law.
In the determination of jurisdiction of a court, the enabling law vesting jurisdiction has to be taken in the light of the relief or reliefs sought. The moment the relief sought comes within the jurisdiction of the court as adumbrated by the facts, the court must assume jurisdiction as it has jurisdiction to do so. Of course, the reverse position is also correct and it is that the moment the relief sought does not come within the jurisdiction of the court, as adumbrated by the facts, the court must reject jurisdiction as it has no jurisdiction in the matter. To that extent, jurisdiction looks almost like an exact formula in calculus, although it devoid of actual figures and numbers.” (Underlining ours, for emphasis)
Being a matter of substantive law, the monetary jurisdiction of a court to entertain a matter can only be determined in the light of the enabling statute and a court is duty bound to follow and apply the monetary jurisdictional limits and limitations as contained or provided in such a statute. The above position received the nod and blessing of the Penultimate Court in Nigeria in the recent case of CAMERON OFFSHORE SYSTEM (NIG) LTD V. AKWA IBOM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY & ANOR (2021) Legalpedia (CA) 41490; (2021) LPELR – 53003 (CA); (2021) LCN/15033 (CA) at p. 17, where the learned jurist, Honourable Justice Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, JCA, put it tersely, as follows:
“It needs to be restated that jurisdiction of a Court to hear a matter is a hard matter of law that can only be determined in the light of the enabling statute. Thus, a Court of law cannot add to or subtract from the provisions of the statute. As a matter of law, a Court must blindly follow and apply the jurisdictional limits and limitations as contained or provided in a statute. It is the statute that is the master and all that a Court of law does is to interpret the provisions of the statute in order to achieve the clear intention of the lawmaker.” (Underlining ours, for emphasis)
It is indubitable that a court of law, with particular reference to an inferior court, is expected to know the amplitude of its monetary jurisdiction and accordingly warn itself in every given case that comes before it. This is because the law is presumed to be ensconced in the breast, breath and fingertips of the judex. In bringing home the point, no statement can be truer than that made by the learned author, David Andy Essien [2], in his article, ‘Role of Judges in the Due Administration of Justice in Nigeria.’ He puts it succinctly as follows:
“… a Judge is expected to be knowledgeable in law. This expectation cuts across the substantive and procedural aspects of the law. In fact, there is nothing worse than a Judge who does not know the law. An ignorant judge is and remains a canker worm to the society. This view finds expression in the legal maxim: “Ignorantia judicis est calamitas innocentis” which literally translates: “the ignorance of the judge is the misfortune of the innocent.” A Counsel has the duty to refer and draw the attention of a Judge to the law, which has relevance to the facts or issues in contention with the objective of attaining justice. On the other hand, on his part, a Judge has a duty to expound, interpret and pronounce on the law so referred to by Counsel and equally state the effect of such law on the case before him.”
Appellate Courts have seamlessly frowned at inferior courts that have placed themselves in the self-induced fiasco of exceeding their monetary jurisdiction. A ready situation presented itself for judicial examination and censure in the recent case of DANGOTE CEMENT PLC V. EGUAGIE ALEX & ORS (2020) LPELR – 52258 (CA); (2020) LCN/14874 (CA), where the Penultimate Court, in strong terms, deprecated the conduct of the learned trial Magistrate in the following words:
“My Lords, I even find it so curious that the trial Magistrate cognizance or supposedly cognizance of the limit of its monetary jurisdiction would proceed to hear and determine a matter and award monetary amounts together with interests whose calculation would be far in excess and way beyond its monetary jurisdiction and thereby creating the self-induced fiasco of a scenario to warrant the enforcement of its monetary judgment against the judgment debtor before the Court below, even against the outright prohibition of same by the Sheriff and Civil Process Act and the Judgment Enforcement Rule (sic) made pursuant to the said Act. In very simple and clear terms, the judgment of the Court below is a nullity, and I so hold.” (Underlining ours, for emphasis)
The just concluded exercise, in content, diction and syntax, provides a lucid answer to the question raised above, to wit: that it is legally impermissible and/or unpardonable for a court to exceed its monetary jurisdiction; and goes a step further to lay the foundation to assimilate the legal situation addressed in this article.
MONETARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE REVENUE COURT OF AKWA IBOM STATE:
The Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State was established through the instrumentality of the Revenue Court Law, Cap. 111, Laws of Akwa Ibom State 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Revenue Court Law”). The said Court is presided over by a Chief Magistrate or a Legal Practitioner of not less than 7 years post call experience who is always referred to as “the Revenue Court Judge” and is assigned to the said Court by the Chief Judge of Akwa Ibom State [see Section 1(2) of the Revenue Court Law].
The Revenue Court is a court of summary jurisdiction [see Section 4(1) of the Revenue Court Law] and is clothed with all the powers of a Chief Magistrate’s Court. This position is made vivid in the letters and spirit of Section 7(1) of the Revenue Court Law which provides that:
“The Court shall subject to the provisions of this Law have and exercise all the powers of a Chief Magistrate’s Court and the practice and procedure of the Court shall be in accordance with the Magistrate’s Court Rules.” (Underlining ours, for emphasis)
In this wise, the Revenue Court cannot impose any punishment greater than that prescribed in the Magistrates’ Court Law [see Section 4(4) of the Revenue Court Law]. Thus, being a court of summary jurisdiction, Section 18(1)(a) of the Akwa Ibom State Magistrates’ Courts (Amended) Law 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the Magistrates’ Courts [Amended] Law”), providing for the jurisdiction of Chief Magistrates in criminal causes and matters, vest in the Revenue Court full jurisdiction in criminal causes for the summary trial and determination of criminal cases where the fine does not exceed N100,000.00. We hereby, extensively, set out the provisions of Section 18(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts (Amended) Law below:
“18.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Law or any other written law a Chief Magistrate Grade One or Chief Magistrate Grade Two shall have full jurisdiction in criminal causes for the summary trial and determination of criminal cases as follows-
(a) Where any person is charged with committing an offence or with doing any act or with omitting to do any act required by law, the commission or omission of which is in any case punishable either by fine not exceeding N100,000.00 or by imprisonment not exceeding five years or by both the Chief Magistrate shall have power to impose the punishment specified by law and no Chief Magistrate shall be required to comply with the provisions of Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Law when trying any offence under this paragraph.” (Underlining ours for emphasis)
Furthermore, by a community reading of Sections 36(1) and 37(4) and (5) of the Akwa Ibom State Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Law, Cap. 47, Laws of Akwa Ibom State of Nigeria, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the EPWMAL”) a body corporate or un-incorporate who fails or neglects to pay the Pollution Discharge Fee, as prescribed, is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine of not less than N500,000.00. For the purpose of clarity and completeness, we reproduce Sections 36(1) and 37(4) and (5) of the EPWMAL below:
“36. (1) The organizations and industries mentioned in Schedule II to this Law shall pay pollution discharge fee indicated in the category mentioned therein. ….
- (4) Any person who fails or neglects to pay the fee prescribed under section 36 of this Law within the specified time shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not less than one hundred thousand naira. ….
- (5) Where a person who commits an offence under sub section (4) of this section is a statutory corporation, body corporate or un-incorporate such a person or body shall be liable on conviction to a fine not less than five hundred thousand naira in addition to paying the fee under section 36 of this Law if he has not complied with that provision.” (Underlining ours, for emphasis)
The point to underscore is that the extant limit of the monetary criminal jurisdiction of the Revenue Court is N100,000.00 and the law does not expect the Revenue Court Judge to act in excess of that amount. Put differently, non-payment of Pollution Discharge Fee by corporate persons attracts a penalty or minimum fine of N500,000.00 and this is in excess of the N100,000.00 monetary criminal jurisdictional limit of the Revenue Court.
JUDICIAL RESPONSE TO THE LIMITS PLACED BY STATUTE ON THE MONETARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE REVENUE COURT OF AKWA IBOM STATE OVER CORPORATE PERSONS:
In the recent case of CAMERON OFFSHORE SYSTEM (NIG) LTD V. AKWA IBOM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION & WASTE MANAGEMENT AGENCY & ANOR (2021) Legalpedia (CA) 41490; (2021) LPELR – 53003 (CA); (2021) LCN/15033 (CA) at pp. 1 – 23, an opportunity presented itself for the Penultimate Court in Nigeria to make certain the length and breadth of the monetary criminal jurisdiction of the Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State over corporate persons. The facts of the said case are comprehensible and straightforward. The Applicant (who is the Appellant at the Court of Appeal) filed a Motion on Notice at the High Court of Akwa Ibom State sitting in Uyo and prayed for an Order of Certiorari quashing Charge No. REU/1133C/2018 and all other proceedings already undertaken pursuant to the said Charge brought against it by the 1st Respondent (Akwa Ibom State Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency) at the Revenue Court, Uyo (presided over by the 2nd Respondent – The Judge, Revenue Court of Uyo Zone). Issues were joined by parties on the said application at the Lower Court. The learned trial Chief Judge, after considering the affidavit evidence of parties, held inter alia that notwithstanding the amount involved, the Charge preferred against the Applicant is within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Lower Court, the Appellant brought the case to the Court of Appeal.
Resolving the knotty issue, Honourable Justice Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, JCA, unmistakably held [at pp. 18 – 21 of (2021) LCN/15033 (CA)] as follows and we quote him in extenso:
“The appellant’s contention both here and at the lower Court is that since the minimum fine the 2nd respondent could impose upon conviction is N500,000, the 2nd Respondent does not have any discretion should the appellant be found guilty. Thus, the 2nd respondent whose monetary jurisdictional limit is N30,000 cannot continue with the proceedings before the Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State.
Section 4 of the Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency Law establishes Environmental/Sanitation Court to be presided by a Magistrate in accordance with Magistrate’s Court Law with inter alia power to fine on the spot any individual or organization that commits any environmental offences under the law. The provisions of Section 18 of the Magistrates’ Courts Cap. 82 of the Laws of Akwa Ibom State on the other hand stipulates the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates in criminal causes and matters as follows:
‘18.(1) Subject to the provisions of this Law or any other written law a Chief Magistrate Grade One or Chief Magistrate Grade Two shall have full jurisdiction in criminal causes for the summary trial and determination of criminal cases as follows:-
(a) Where any person is charged with committing an offence or with doing any act or with omitting to do any act required by law, the commission or omission of which is in any case punishable either by fine not exceeding thirty thousand naira or by imprisonment not exceeding five years or by both the Chief Magistrate shall have power to impose the punishment specified by law and no Chief Magistrate shall be required to comply with the provisions of Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Law when trying any offence under this paragraph;
(b)(i) Where any person is charged with committing an offence or with doing any act or omitting to do any act required by law, the commission or omission of which is stated by the enactment declaring such to be both an offence and to be one punishable or triable or liable to be dealt with on summary conviction or summarily or in a summary manner the Chief Magistrate shall have the power to award the maximum sentence of imprisonment and to order the payment of the maximum fine or penalty or forfeiture provided by such enactment or both such imprisonment and such fine or penalty or forfeiture where by law both may be imposed:
(ii) Where any enactment provides that an order for the payment of money may be made on summary conviction or summarily or in a summary manner in respect of any act or omission the chief magistrate shall have the power to order the payment of the sum which may be ordered according to the provisions of the enactment providing for the making of the order;
(c) Where any person is charged with committing an offence or with doing any act or with omitting to do any act required by law; the commission or omission of which is an offence not stated to be punishable on summary conviction or triable summarily or in a summary manner, and it is stated by the enactment declaring such to be an offence that is punishable either by a fine exceeding thirty thousand naira or by imprisonment exceeding five years or both, but taking into account the circumstances of the particular offence with which such person is charged and the character and antecedents of the accused himself the Chief Magistrate is of opinion that the charge then before the Court appears to be one of such a nature that, if proved, it would be adequately punished by any of the following punishments-
(i) Imprisonment for not more than five years;
(ii) A fine not exceeding thirty thousand naira, such fine to be enforced in default of payment by distress or by imprisonment for more than five years.’ ”
Rounding off his exposition, Honourable Justice Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, JCA, firmly held thus:
From the above, it is my humble view that the Revenue Court presided over by the 2nd Respondent whose monetary limit is N30,000.00 cannot try charge NO. REU/1133C/2018 which attracts a minimum fine of N500,000.00. In the result, this appeal shall be and is hereby allowed. The ruling of the High Court of Justice of Akwa Ibom State delivered on 19/11/2019 is hereby set aside. I accordingly grant the order of certiorari and quash the criminal summons on the appellant on charge No. REU/1133C/2018 Akwa Ibom Environmental Protection and Waste Management Agency V. Cameron Offshore System Nig. Limited and all other proceedings already undertaken in the matter pursuant to the charge.” (Underlining ours, for emphasis)
Speaking in the same case [CAMERON’S CASE (2021) LCN/15033 (CA) at p. 22], Honourable Justice Mojeed Adekunle Owoade, JCA, in similar terms, said:
“In particular, I agree with the lead judgment that the Revenue Court of Akwa Ibom State whose monetary jurisdictional limit is N30,000.00 cannot try Charge No. REU/1133C/2018 which attracts a minimum fee of N500,000.00. I also allow the appeal. I abide by the consequential orders.” (Underlining ours, for emphasis)
Concurring with the Leading Judgment in the above cited case [CAMERON’S CASE (2021) LCN/15033 (CA) at p. 22], Honourable Justice James Shehu Abiriyi, JCA, had this to say:
“I am in complete agreement with my learned brother that the Revenue Court presided over by the 2nd Respondent lacks the jurisdiction to entertain Charge No. REU/1133C/2018 which attracts a penalty of N500,000.00 as against the N30,000.00 monetary limit of the Court. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the ruling of 19/11/2019 of the High Court Akwa Ibom State.” (Underlining ours, for emphasis)
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
There is no doubt that every court is endowed with jurisdiction by statute or the Constitution and where a court exercises jurisdiction in a matter which it does not possess, the decision from such an exercise is a nullity. Therefore every court must assure itself that it has the requisite jurisdiction before embarking on the hearing of the matter to avoid a waste of precious and scarce judicial time.
In the light of the above, we emphatically state that the proper court with the requisite vires to entertain complaints about the non-payment of Pollution Discharge Fee by natural and corporate persons is the Environmental Sanitation Court and not the Revenue Court [see Sections 40(4), 42(1), (2) and (3) and 48 of the EPWMAL]. Regrettably, even the Environmental Sanitation Court is hamstrung by this common monetary criminal jurisdiction virus because it is equally presided over by a Magistrate [see Section 42(1) of the EPWMAL]. We ask: if the limit of the monetary criminal jurisdiction of a Chief Magistrate is N100,000.00, which other cadre of Magistracy can entertain a charge of non-payment of Pollution Discharge Fee that attracts a minimum punishment or fine of N500,000.00? This and many more thought-provoking questions lead us to the following ineluctable recommendations:
- An amendment and upward review of the monetary criminal jurisdiction of Magistrates in Akwa Ibom State so as to bring the punishment or fine for non-payment of Pollution Discharge Fee for corporate persons within the parameters of the monetary criminal jurisdiction of a Magistrate.
- Alternatively, an amendment of the EPWMAL to reduce the punishment or fine for non-payment of Pollution Discharge Fee by corporate persons from N500,000.00 to an amount that brings the said cause or matter within the monetary criminal jurisdiction of a Magistrate.
- Additionally, the High Court of Akwa Ibom State must, in deserving circumstances; rise to the occasion whenever there is a clarion call for the delimitation of the monetary criminal jurisdiction of inferior courts. This stems from the fact that a High Court has an inherent power, unfettered by statute, to control inferior courts in a supervisory capacity. Such control is by means of Certiorari to keep the inferior court within the law; within bounds; and within such jurisdiction as the legislature deems fit to confer upon it. This position was better mirrored and canvassed by Honourable Justice Muhammed Lawal Shuaibu, JCA, in CAMERON’S CASE (2021) LCN/15033 (CA) at pp. 16 – 17, to wit:
“As part of its supervisory control over an inferior Court, tribunal or a body entrusted with the performance of a judicial or quasi-judicial function, a High Court must ensure that it does not exceed its jurisdiction or commit irregularities thereby making its decision bad on its face. See Nwaboshi V. Military Administrator Delta State (2003) 11 NWLR (prt 831) 305.” (Underlining ours, for emphasis)
WORKS CITED:
[1] David Andy Essien, ‘The Revenue Court Versus The Environmental Sanitation Court: An Interrogation of The Court With Requisite Jurisdiction Over Pollution Discharge Fee Under The Akwa Ibom State Environmental Protection And Waste Management Agency Law, Cap. 47, Laws of Akwa Ibom State Of Nigeria, 2000’ (The Nigeria Lawyer, 16 January 2023) <https://thenigerialawyer.com/the-revenue-court-versus-the-environmental-sanitation-court-an-interrogation-of-the-court-with-requisite-jurisdiction-over-pollution-discharge-fee-under-the-akwa-ibom-state-environmental-protection-a/> accessed 21 April 2023.
[2] David Andy Essien, ‘Role of Judges in the Due Administration of Justice in Nigeria’ (The Nigeria Lawyer, 20 October 2021) <https://thenigerialawyer.com/role-of-judges-in-the-due-administration-of-justice-in-nigeria/> accessed 24 April 2023.
Authors
*David Andy Essien, Esq., is an Associate in the Law Firm of Usungurua Bassey & Associates, No.140 Atiku Abubakar Way, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. He can be reached at davidandyessien@gmail.com. Twitter: @DavidAndyEssien
**Ekemini Nseabasi Okpoiso, Esq., is an Associate in the Law Firm of Usungurua Bassey & Associates, No.140 Atiku Abubakar Way, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. She can be reached at kemmyokpoiso@gmail.com. Twitter: @EkeminiOkpoiso
***Iniubong Idongesit Moses, Esq., is a Junior Associate in the Law Firm of Usungurua Bassey & Associates, No.140 Atiku Abubakar Way, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. She can be reached at mosesiniubong8@gmail.com. Twitter: @iniubong_moses
