"Jurisdiction of any State High Court and the Federal High Court is donated by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). In relation to a State High Court, Section 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria provides:

"Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue."

Thus, a State High Court has a very wide civil jurisdiction on almost all civil matters, except where it has been limited/restricted by the Constitution or any other statute. On the other hand, Section 251 of the same Constitution provided for the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court including admiralty matters. It states: "251(1) Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil causes and matters(g) any admiralty jurisdiction, including shipping and navigation on the River Niger or River Benue and their affluent and on such other inland water way as may be designated by any enactment to be an international waterway, all Federal Ports, (including the Constitution and powers of the port, authorities for Federal ports) and carriage by sea." There is a finding by the trial Court which was affirmed by the Court below that the transaction between the parties is that of houseboat hire.

This, in my view, is a simple contract and not an admiralty or maritime matter. By the constitutional provisions of a State High Court, it is the Port Harcourt High Court and not the Federal High Court that has jurisdiction over this simple contractual engagement. This is because, careful observation and literal construction of the averments of the Statement of Claim is to the effect that the action filed before the trial Court is for the recovery of accrued and unpaid hire rentals for a houseboat let to the appellant by the respondent and damages for breach of the contract. The fact that the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1991, Cap. A5 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, defines a ship (Section 26 thereof) as a vessel of any kind used or constructed for use in navigation by water, however it is propelled or moved and includes a large, lighter or other floating vessel, cannot, in my view, convert an agreement for hire of houseboat into an admiralty agreement.

The mere fact that a ship is involved in a simple contract does not automatically make that simple contract a subject for jurisdiction in admiralty matters. To hold to that supposition will be ridiculous. See: Texaco Overseas Nigeria Petroleum Company Unlimited v. Pedmar Nigeria Ltd. (2002) 7 SC (Pt.11) 222; American International Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ceekay Traders Ltd. (1981) 5 SC 81. This case of a simple contract of debt recovery is, I hold, within the civil jurisdiction of the Rivers State High Court and it properly assumed jurisdiction on the matter."

Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. IN TSKJ (NIG) LTD v. OTOCHEM (NIG) LTD CITATION: (2018) LPELR-44294(SC)