Nepa v Edegbero and onuorah v kaduna instructive position on fed high court and high court jurisdiction

One other area that has been subject to much controversy is with respect to disputes involving the federal government or any of its agencies. This is as provided under section 251 (p), (q) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution. In NEPA v Edegbero, (SC) (2002) 18 NWLR 798 79 the court stated that, ‘in construing section 230 of the 1979 Constitution as amended, two important matters arise. They are; the parties in the litigation as well as the subject matter of the litigation. The court must consider both. ’This decision was followed in Olutola v. Unilorin (2004) 11-12 SC 214, where the respondents were held to be an agency of the federal government.
However, in Onuorah v. Kaduna Refining & Petrochemical Co. (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393, the Supreme Court seemed to have jettisoned its position in Nepa v. Edegbero over the consideration of the parties and subject matter when construing S. 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended; as well as actions involving Federal Government agencies. The Supreme Court held that in matters of simple contracts, the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction and that the issue that the respondent was an agency of the Federal Government was irrelevant.
Curiously, this case was decided with two Justices of the Supreme Court, Tobi and Onu, JSC, who also sat in the Edegbero’s case. Again, Edegbero’s case was not cited before the court so that it could be expressly overruled. However, from the decision it is decipherable that the court chose to consider the nature of the claim, that is, the subject matter of the suit alone without reference to the parties to the suit as it earlier held in Edegbero