SOUTH TRUST BANK & ORS v. PHERANZY GAS LIMITED & ORS
(2014)LCN/6950(CA)
RATIO
APPEAL: WHETHER ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST BE DISTILLED FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
It is indeed trite and a correct statement of the law that issue for determination must be distilled from the grounds of appeal and that any issue which did not arise from the grounds of appeal is incompetent and liable to be discountenanced or struck out. In the case of West African Examinations Council v. Adeyanju (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt.1092) 270 at 291 paras C-E referred to by learned counsel, the Supreme Court held as follows:
“…Taking the complaint of the respondent on the appellant’s issue number 4 which is predicated on the question of public policy, there is no doubt whatsoever that the matter concerning public policy was not raised in any of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant. The position of the law in this respect regarding the status of such an issue is that it is incompetent because an appellate court can only decide all appeal on issues raised on the grounds of appeal filed. See Management Enterprises v. Otusanya (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.55) 179 and Onifade v. Olayiwola (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.161) 130 @ 157. In this respect, any argument in the brief of argument in support of such issues not arising from the grounds of appeal, will be discountenanced by the court in the determination of the appeal as stated in Momodu v. Momoh (1991) 1 NWLR (169) 620-621. In line with the requirement of the law, issue number 4 in the appellant’s brief of argument together with all the arguments in support thereof shall be discountenanced in the determination of this appeal.” See also Unity Bank Plc v. Bouari (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt.1086) 372 @ 400.
See generally Cross River State Newspaper Corp. V. Oni (1995) 1 NWLR (Pt.371) 270; Onia v. Onia (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.99) 514 @ 529; Complain Comm. & Ind. Spr Ltd. v. Ogun State Water Corp. & Anor (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt.773) 629; Lambert v. Nigerian Navy (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt.980) 514 @ 532 E – G. Per CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A
JURISDICTION: SUBJECT MATTERS THAT CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
The fact is that Section 251(1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution gives jurisdiction to Federal High Court in respect of any matter connected to banks, banking and other financial institutions. The Supreme Court while considering the import of the proviso in S.251 (1)(d) in the case of NDIC v Okem Enterprises Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt.880) 107 held that by the proviso both the Federal High Court and the State High Court has jurisdiction in disputes between an individual customer and his bank, It is now firmly established by the Supreme Court, that in a Banker/Customer relationship of this nature, the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is also not in doubt that the 2nd Appellant qualifies as a financial institution under the combined provisions of the Bankers and Other Financial Institutions Act, 2004 (Section 66) and Section 251(1) (h) of the 1999 Constitution. The decision in Adetayo v. Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1215) 169 at 189 cited by the Appellants dealt with the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear land matters in which the Federal Government or any of its agency is a party. It has no relevance whatever to this appeal. In the result, this issue is resolved in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents. I hold that the decision of the trial Judge declining jurisdiction to entertain the Counterclaim is invalid, improper and cannot be sustained in law. Per CHINWE EUGENIA IYIZOBA, J.C.A
