WEMA BANK v. CRESTWOOD HOLDINGS LIMITED
(2019)LCN/12714(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 14th day of February, 2019
CA/L/924/2011
RATIO
COURT AND PROCEDURE: WHETHER A COURT CAN AWARD, WHAT WA NEVER CLAIMED
“We take the view that this proposition of law is not only good law but good sense …. a fortiori…the Court should never award that which was never claimed or pleaded by either party. Further see: Akapo v. Hakeem Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 247) 266 @ 297- 298; Awoniyi v. Registered Trustees of Armoc (2000) 10 NWLR (pt. 676) 522 @ 539; Ayorinde v. Kuforiji (2007) 3 NWLR (pt.1024) 341 @ 371. In the circumstances of the gratuitous transfer of the Claimant’s action to the Federal High Court, by the Court below, I have no difficulty in agreeing with the appellant’s learned counsel that the aforesaid transfer was palpably in error.” PER TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: THE MEANING OF JURISDICTION
“Jurisdiction is the authority that a Court has in order to decide any matter laid before it or even take cognisance of matters presented before it in a formal way for its decision on such matters. Therefore, where a Court lacks the jurisdiction to try any matter presented before it, such a decision amounts to nothing as it will be tantamount to an exercise in futility. To underscore the criticality and quitessence of jurisdiction to adjudication, the Supreme Court in a plethora of decided authorities, one of which is Hon. Ehioze Egharevba v. Hon. Crosby Osadulor Eribo & Ors (2010) 9 NWLR (pt. 1199) 411; (2010) LPELR – 9716 (SC); (2010) 3 SCNJ (Pt. 11) 441 at 453 – 454, re-echoed the law succinctly, per Adekeye, JSC that: Jurisdiction is a term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action.” PER TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
WEMA BANK – Appellant(s)
AND
CRESTWOOD HOLDINGS LTD – Respondent(s)
TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This appeal arose from the ruling delivered by the Lagos State High Court of Justice, Ikeja Division, on 22nd June, 2011. The appellant had challenged the action of the respondent on the ground that the said action, having been constituted as a maritime and admiralty matter, the Court below, had no jurisdiction to entertain and determine it. The learned trial judge agreed with the appellant’s contention to the effect that the respondent’s action could not be determined by him, because it is the Federal High Court, that possessed the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate over it. The learned trial judge, after having declined jurisdiction to entertain the aforesaid respondent’s action, transferred it to the Federal High Court, for its determination. The appellant’s grouse against that decision, is that the learned trial judge, having declined jurisdiction over the respondent’s action, ought to have struck it out and not transferring it to the Federal High Court, because he had no jurisdictional power to have so done.
The appeal was erected on six grounds. The appellant, in order to activate the prosecution of the appeal, was armed with the appellant’s brief of argument, dated 25th March, 2013 and filed on 26th March, 2013. The same was deemed by this Court, as properly filed on 6th March, 2014. Olabode Olanipekun, who settled the said appellant’s brief of argument, nominated three issues therein, for the determination of the appeal, thus:
(i) Whether the lower Court (High Court of Lagos State) has/had the jurisdiction to transfer a matter instituted before it and over which it has no jurisdiction to the Federal High Court. (Grounds 1 & 6).
(ii) Considering the order of transfer made by the lower Court and the reasons for same vis–vis the fact that there was no such relief before the lower Court, whether the lower Court did act in excess of its jurisdiction and also breached Appellant?s right for fair hearing (Grounds 2 & 3).
(iii) Whether the lower Court was not wrong in refusing to terminate the suit before it after rightly holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain same (Grounds 4 & 5).
The respondent’s learned counsel did not file a brief of argument, on the appeal.
That notwithstanding, the law is well settled to the effect that, although a respondent’s counsel opted not to file a brief of argument against an appeal, that will not automatically translate to the success of the appellant’s appeal, without more. The appeal must be considered and determined by the Court, on the strength of the appellant’s case as canvassed by his counsel to the satisfaction of the Court. Okongwu v. Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (1989) 4 NWLR (pt.115) 296; Sofalahan v. Folakan (1999) 10 NWLR (pt.621) 86; Akas v. Manager (2001) 8 NWLR (pt.715) 436 @ 442; Echere v. Ezirike (2006) 12 NWLR (pt.994) 386; Ajonye v. Nwachukwu (2011) LPELR- 3677 (CA).
In my consideration of the appeal, I shall take together, the three issues nominated by the appellant’s counsel, in resolving the appeal. A resume of the contentions of Appellant’s learned counsel are that the learned trial judge lacked the jurisdictional competence of transferring the respondent’s action to the Federal High Court for determination because there was no law which empowered him to have so done. He placed reliance on Fasakin Foods (Nig) Ltd v. Shosanya (2006) 10 NWLR (pt.987) 226 @ 171- 172; B.F.D. (NIG) Ltd v. U.T.B. Trustees Ltd (2010) 6 NWLR (pt. 1189) 185 @ 204 amongst others. He also contended that the Court below made the order of transfer in question, which was not asked for by the appellant. He referred to Ekpenyong v. Nyong (1975) 2 SC. 71 @ 80; Ayorinde v. Kuforiji (2007) 4 NWLR (pt.1024) 341 @ 371, along with other authorities. Furthermore, it is the contention of Appellant’s learned counsel, to the effect that after having upheld the applicant’s challenge to his jurisdiction over the respondent’s action, the learned trial judge, had nothing more to do than striking out the said action. He placed reliance on Obi v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2007) 11 NWLR (pt.1046) 565 @ 629.
Resolution of issues.
Jurisdiction is the authority that a Court has in order to decide any matter laid before it or even take cognisance of matters presented before it in a formal way for its decision on such matters. Therefore, where a Court lacks the jurisdiction to try any matter presented before it, such a decision amounts to nothing as it will be tantamount to an exercise in futility. To underscore the criticality and quitessence of jurisdiction to adjudication, the Supreme Court in a plethora of decided authorities, one of which is Hon. Ehioze Egharevba v. Hon. Crosby Osadulor Eribo & Ors (2010) 9 NWLR (pt. 1199) 411; (2010) LPELR – 9716 (SC); (2010) 3 SCNJ (Pt. 11) 441 at 453 – 454, re-echoed the law succinctly, per Adekeye, JSC that:
“Jurisdiction is a term of comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action.
It is the power of a Court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted Court, with control over the subject matter and the parties. Jurisdiction also defines the power of the Court to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions and declare judgment. It is the legal right by which judges exercise their authority. Jurisdiction is equally to Court, what a door is to a house. That is why the question of a Court’s jurisdiction is called a threshold issue, because it is at the threshold of the temple of justice. Jurisdiction is a radical and fundamental question of competence, for if the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceedings are and remains a nullity however well-conducted and brilliantly decided they might have been. A defect in competence is not intrinsic but rather extrinsic to adjudication. Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 84) pg. 508; Oloriode v Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR pg. 390, Ezomo v. Oyakhire (1985) 1 NWLR pt. 2 pg. 105; Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd (1992): 2 SCNLR pg. 341, Barclays Bank v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1976) 6 SC pg. 175, African Newspapers of Nigeria v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 NWLR pt. 6 pg. 137, Adeleke v. OSHA (2006) 16 NWLR pt. 1006 pg. 608; Attorney General Anambra State v. A – G Federation (1993) 6 NWLR pt. 302 pg. 692, Saleh v. Monguno (2003) 1 NWLR pt. 801 pg. 221. The issue of jurisdiction being fundamental can be raised and challenged at any stage of the proceedings in the lower court, in the Court of Appeal or even for the first time in the Supreme Court. The issue of jurisdiction being so pivotal can be raised suo motu by the Court so long as the parties are accorded the opportunity to react to the issue.”
The eminent jurist and revered Mohammed Bello, C.J.N. (now of blessed memory) in the judicial words on marble on jurisdiction, in Chief Utuedo Utih & 6 Ors. v. Jacob U. Onoyivwe & 5 Ors (1991) 1 SCNJ 25 at 49, had stated that:
“Jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a Court of law and without jurisdiction, the action will be like an animal that has been drained of its blood. It will cease to have life and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into it, would be an abortive exercise.”
The reason for this analogy is not farfetched. It is because the life of the flesh is in the blood. In other words, jurisdiction is the life in the action, placed before the Court, for adjudication.
The learned trial judge, in the instant case, indeed upheld the appellant’s challenge to his jurisdiction in entertaining the respondent’s action. Thereafter, his Lordship, at page 220 of the record of appeal had this to say:
“I note, however, that this suit has been instituted since 2005. Striking it out/dismissing this suit would undoubtedly lead to the Respondent losing his right of action by reason of statute bar. As both the High Court and the Federal High Court are Courts of coordinate jurisdiction and there is no statute known to me preventing a transfer, I transfer this case to the Hon Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, within whose jurisdiction the case lies, for adjudication.”
Interestingly, just as his Lordship opined that he was not aware of any law, preventing him from transferring the case from the Lagos State High Court, to the Federal High Court, he perhaps forgot to state the law which empowered him to so transfer the case as he did. Apparently, he acted on his own, without an enabling law, that is, he acted without a lawful authorization. In plain and simple language, the order made by His Lordship, was decreed without jurisdiction. Instructively, in B.F.D. (Nig) Ltd v. U. T. B. Trustees Ltd (2010) 6 NWLR (pt.1189) 185 @ 204, my Lord, Rhodes – Vivour, JSC., succinctly stated and put the nail on the head thus:
“when a judge of the Federal High Court finds out that he has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit, the correct order to make is to transfer it to the Court with jurisdiction to try the case. A judge of the Federal High Court derives this power from Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act, which provides that no cause or matter shall be struck out by the Court merely on ground that such cause or matter was taken in the Court instead of the High Court of a State or the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in which it ought to have been brought and the judge of the Court before whom such matter is brought may cause such cause or matter to be transferred to the appropriate High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. There is no such provision in the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules and so a judge of the State High Court who finds he has no jurisdiction to try a case ought to strike out the suit so as to afford the plaintiff another opportunity of going again before the Court with jurisdiction to try the case.”
Further see: Braithwaite v. Skye Bank Plc (2012) LPELR- 15532 (SC); (2012) 9 NWLR (pt.1305) 304 @ 323; Fasakin Foods (Nig.) Ltd v. Shosanya (2006) 10 NWLR (pt.987) 126 @ 171-172.
In short, it is indisputable, that the learned trial judge of the Lagos State High Court, was not statutorily empowered to transfer the incompetent suit before him, to the Federal High Court, for its determination in that Court.
In the appellant’s motion on notice at pages 164-165 of the record of appeal, that was ruled upon by the learned trial judge on 22nd June,2011, the appellant prayed for an order of the Court: “dismissing or striking out the Claimant’s action for want of requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate on same.” Therefore, the answer expected by the appellant from the Court below, after upholding the objection to his jurisdiction in the matter, was either to dismiss or strike out the Claimant’s action. That expected answer was not what the appellant got. His Lordship felt that the Claimant’s action ought not to be dismissed nor struck out. Hence, the same was transferred to the Federal High Court, for adjudication. It appears that the learned trial judge, in the manner and modus operandi of a Father Christmas, was gratuitous in transferring the case, which was not prayed for by the appellant nor by the claimant. The law remains firmly settled to the effect that a Court of law is not to engage in granting prayers which none of the parties in a matter before him had asked for.
This principle, had been established long ago by the Supreme Court in Ekpenyong v. Nyong (1975) 2 S.C. 71 @ 80, where trial Courts were admonished thus:
“We think that, as the reliefs granted by the trial Judge were not those sought by the Applicant. He went beyond his jurisdiction when he purported to grant such reliefs. It is trite law that the Court is without the power to award to a claimant that which he did not claim. This principle of law has since and again been re-stated again and again by this Court that it seems to us that there is no longer need to cite authorities in support of it.
We take the view that this proposition of law is not only good law but good sense …. a fortiori…the Court should never award that which was never claimed or pleaded by either party.”
Further see: Akapo v. Hakeem Habeeb (1992) 6 NWLR (pt. 247) 266 @ 297- 298; Awoniyi v. Registered Trustees of Armoc (2000) 10 NWLR (pt. 676) 522 @ 539; Ayorinde v. Kuforiji (2007) 3 NWLR (pt.1024) 341 @ 371.
In the circumstances of the gratuitous transfer of the Claimant’s action to the Federal High Court, by the Court below, I have no difficulty in agreeing with the appellant’s learned counsel that the aforesaid transfer was palpably in error.
Furthermore, unarguably, the law has been well settled to the effect that where a Court, such as the Court below, finds out that it has no jurisdictional competence over any matter placed before it for adjudication, all it needs to do, is to strike out such an action. Therefore, if the Court makes any other order, apart from an order striking out the action, after it has come to the conclusion that it is bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the action, such an order will be declared by the appellate Court, as a nullity and of no effect. In Peter Obi v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2007) 11 NWLR (pt.1046) 565 @ 629, his Lordship, Aderemi, JSC., had held thus:
“Let me quickly say here that once a Court declines jurisdiction to entertain a suit, the only other step it could take in the matter is to make an order striking out the suit. Any other order or pronouncement made by the Court after declaring that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit, is null and void and of no effect.”
All said, I have come to the considered and firm opinion that the order made by the learned trial judge herein, transferring the Claimant’s action to the Federal High Court, for adjudication, because he had no jurisdiction to entertain that claim, instead of striking it out, was in error and consequently, it was a nullity and of no effect.
In sum, having resolved all the issues discussed in this appeal, in favour of the appellant, I hold that the appeal is on a strong wicket. It succeeds in its entirety.
The order of transfer of the Claimant’s action to the Federal High Court, for adjudication, by O. A. Adefope-Okojie, J., (as he then was) at the Ikeja Division of the Lagos State High Court of Justice, in re- Suit NO: ID/1470/2005, on 22nd June, 2011, is hereby set aside. In its stead, it is accordingly ordered that the Claimant’s action above mentioned, is struck out.
Each side shall bear its own cost of the appeal.
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.C.A.: I read before today the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at with nothing useful to add.
GABRIEL OMONIYI KOLAWOLE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege to read in draft, the lead judgment of my learned brother, TOM SHAIBU YAKUBU, JCA which has just been delivered.
I agree with the decision reached that the learned trial judge of the High Court of Lagos State having reached a decision that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent?s Claims, ought to have struck it out as there is no statutory powers conferred on him to transfer the case to the Federal High Court.
I have nothing more to add and I agree that the appeal succeeds. I abide with the consequential orders made that both parties shall bear their respective Cost,
The case in the lower Court i.e suit No: ID/1470/2005 is accordingly struck out.
Appearances:
Bode Olanipekun, SAN with him, Faith Adarighofua, Oshin Olusola and Yewande BadiruFor Appellant(s)
Babatunde Kehinde with him, Temitope Ekundayo and Michael AkinnadeFor Respondent(s)
