Abstract
The power and authority which a court has to hear and determine any matter is conferred on it by the Constitution, the enabling Act setting up the court in question and other sundry legislation. Upon the coming into effect of the 1999 Constitution, the draft men in their bid to ensure certainty in the court that should handle matters sounding in admiralty inserted section 251(1)(g) into the CFRN,1999 (as amended).Notwithstanding the preciseness of the above provision on the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the practical reality is that it is still uncertain in some cases whether it the State High Court or the Federal High Court that should adjudicate on some categories of admiralty matters, more especially matters of simple contract with arising from transaction sounding in admiralty. The uncertain nature of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court came about from decisions of the Courts which interpreted section 272 of the Constitution as still empowering the State High Court to hear matters of simple contract generally irrespective of whether the so called ‘simple contract’ cases has its background in issues that are unarguably admiralty in nature. This limitation on the Federal High Court jurisdiction and the consequential enlargement of the Jurisdiction of the State High Court now put admiralty claimant and admiralty law practitioners in a disadvantaged position. The objective of this paper is to look at the powers of the Federal High Court to hear admiralty matters generally and critically evaluate recent judicial authorities which by implication has now limited the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in admiralty causes to the advantage of the State High Court, particularly in cases of simple contract. Finally conclusions were made based on the issues raised in the course of the paper and recommendations on way forward were offered.