“The provisions of the Constitution had remained the same that the Federal High Court was not conferred with jurisdiction to entertain claims founded on contract as in the instant case. In other words Section 230 (1) which is the same with Section 251 (1) provides limitation to jurisdiction of the State High Court because the items listed in the Provisions of the constitution, can only be determined exclusively by the Federal High Court.

All other items not included in the list would therefore still be within the jurisdiction of the State High Court.

In the instant case, since disputes founded on contracts are not among those included in the additional jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court, that Court therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellants claim. The lower Court was therefore wrong, in its decision, to confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court which had entertained the claim of the appellant. See:- Felix Onuorah Vs Kaduna Refining And Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 256) 1356 at 1365; Seven-Up Bottling Co. Ltd Vs Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd (2001) FWLR (Pt. 70) 1611 (2001) 13NWLR (Pt. 730) 469 and Trade Bank Plc Vs Benilux (Nig.) Ltd. (2003) FWLR (Pt. 162) 1871; (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 825) 416 at 430 & 431”

PER S.D. BAGE, J.S.C IN THE CASE OF PETER ESSI V. NIGERIA PORTS PLC; LER(2018)SC.63/2006