It is not in doubt that some people including legal practitioners, have the impression that once a suit borders on land, even with a statutory right of occupancy, such dispute is not within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court but rather within the exclusive jurisdiction of the concerned State High Court to resolve. This assumption, may be based on their impression that the Land Use Act has conferred exclusive original jurisdiction on High Courts in respect of proceedings over such land. Furthermore also, such people as stated herein, may have their opinion on the exclusivity of High Court jurisdiction over landed matter hinged on the fact that disputes over land is not one of the items over which either the Constitution or the Federal High Court Act, confers jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, whether exclusive or otherwise. To such people therefore, only the High Courts, rather than the Federal High Court, have and should exercise exclusive jurisdiction over disputes relating to such land. The research question herein is; how valid and correct is this assumption in fact and law? This work, using the doctrinal methodology through examination of relevant primary and secondary sources of legal research materials, draws a conclusion that the Land Use Act does not make an absolute bar against initiating suits on land matters in any other court outside the High Courts, including the Federal High Court. Thus the choice of the court to adjudicate on land matters is determined by the nature of the subject matter of the proceedings and the parties involved therein.