Does the Federal High Court Have Jurisdiction Over Tort Claims? (Section 251 Explained Simply)
Does the Federal High Court Have Jurisdiction Over Tort Claims? (Section 251 Explained Simply)
If you’re a Nigerian law student and section 251 of the 1999 Constitution has ever confused you, please rest! You are not alone. I stumbled on an article about jurisdiction for tort actions and this particular subtopic in that article was trying to address the issue on whether the Federal High Court has the jurisdiction to hear claims based on tort. While reading, I was for some minutes confused on a part that stated ” federal high court have been given jurisdictions to the exclusion of other courts” that means they should possess additional jurisdiction to hear matters more than any other lesser court would right? Not until I read further about the relation between Section 251 of the constitution of the Federal republic of Nigeria 1999( as amended) as regards whether Federal High courts could enforce action on tortotous acts.
One minute you’re confident that torts belong to the State High Court. Next thing, section 251 is shouting “exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court” and you’re asking:
So… can the Federal High Court hear tort claims or not? That exactly explained what happened to me.
The Short answer I needed to the not so big question was that: the Federal High Court does possess that jurisdiction but it is not in all circumstances.
Now, Let’s break it down calmly and logically.
1. The General Rule
As a general principle states that ideally;
I. The Federal High Court does NOT have general jurisdiction over torts.
II.Torts are referred to and can be grouped as “private civil wrongs” examples of which includes assault, battery, negligence, trespass, defamation, false imprisonment, and the likes.
👉 These ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the State High Court.
So if the matter ended here, life would be easy.
But then… section 251 entered the chat. Now let’s quickly dive into what Section 251 is all about.
2. What Section 251 Is Really About (This Is the Key)
This is where many people get lost.
Firstly, Section 251 does not confer jurisdiction based on the type of action (tort, contract, etc).
It confers jurisdiction based on mainly the SUBJECT MATTER.
So the real question is NOT whether an action is a tort but
The real question is:“Does this dispute arise from a subject matter listed under section 251(1)?
Once you understand this, everything becomes clearer.
3. What Kind of Matters Are Listed in Section 251?
Without reproducing the whole section, section 251 covers matters relating to things matters pertaining to :
– The Federal Government or its agencies
– Customs and excise
– Immigration
– Admiralty and maritime matters
– Aviation
– Banking and foreign exchange
– Companies income tax
– Copyright, patents and trademarks
These are basically Federal subject matters.
Can a Tort Claim Ever Go to the Federal High Court?
A tort claim can come before a Federal High Court to be tried but that’s only in special suitation.Some of which includes
> Where a tort arises from or is incidental to a subject matter listed in section 251, the Federal High Court has jurisdiction.
In other words, the tort must be connected to a federal subject as listed in Section 251.
Simple Examples:
– Negligence arising from aviation operation → Federal High Court
– False imprisonment by immigration officers while performing immigration duties → Federal High Court
– Conversion or detention of goods during customs seizure → Federal High Court
– Negligence occurring in admiralty or maritime activities→ Federal High Court
Here, the tort is not standing alone. It is anchored to a section 251 matter.
When the Federal High Court Has NO Jurisdiction Over Torts
The Federal High Court will lack jurisdiction where:
– The tort is purely private, and
– The facts have no connection whatsoever to any matter listed under section 251.
Examples:
– Ordinary assault or battery
– Road traffic negligence (between private individuals)
– Trespass to land
– Defamation
👉 These remain firmly within the State High Court’s jurisdiction.
Even if a federal agency is somehow involved, jurisdiction will still depend on the subject matter, not the label of the parties.
This is where many students mix things up.
*Tort jurisdiction is NOT the same as Fundamental Rights jurisdiction.
Under section 46 of the Constitution;
– The Federal High Court and State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to hear Fundamental Rights enforcement actions.
So even if the facts disclose a tort (like assault or false imprisonment), once the main claim is enforcement of a fundamental right, jurisdiction exists.
👉 The action becomes constitutional, not tortious.
This is why courts always look at the principal claim, not just the facts.
Memory Trick (Don’t Forget This for Exams )
If you remember nothing else, remember this:
> Tort alone = State High Court
> Tort + section 251 subject matter = Federal High Court
Very simple. Very powerful. Let us try to illustrate something using a problem question
Problem Question Example (Jurisdiction & Tort)
Question:
Ayo, a passenger aboard a commercial aircraft operated by a Nigerian airline, sustained serious injuries due to the negligent conduct of the airline’s staff during landing. He instituted an action at the Federal High Court claiming damages for negligence. The airline objects, arguing that negligence is a tort which falls within the jurisdiction of the State High Court.
Advise Ayo.
To answer this we would be making use of the IRAC method ( issue, rules and application) format.
The issue for determination is whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an action founded on negligence, which is a tort.
As a general principle, tort claims fall within the jurisdiction of the State High Court. However, jurisdiction is determined not by the form of the action but by the subject matter of the dispute, as provided under section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
Section 251(1) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in matters relating to, inter alia, aviation and aircraft operations. Where a tortious claim arises from or is ancillary to a subject matter listed under this section, the Federal High Court is competent to assume jurisdiction.
In the present case, Ayo’s claim for negligence arose from aviation operations, which is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The fact that the action is founded on the tort of negligence does not divest the Federal High Court of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the objection raised by the airline is unfounded, and the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
In Conclusion, Although negligence is a tort, the Federal High Court has jurisdiction where the cause of action arises from aviation, a subject matter expressly listed under section 251(1) of the Constitution.
I personally realised that something about section 251 it just requires careful reading.
The Federal High Court is not a general tort court, but it can competently hear tort claims when they arise from federal subject matters expressly listed in section 251.
Once you train yourself to ask the right jurisdiction question, confusion disappears.
If you’re a law student reading this and saying
“Ahhh, so that’s it!” — then this post has done its job.
Law really is simpler when explained properly and that’s exactly what law made simple is here for.



