ECOBANK (NIG) LTD & ORS v. IDRIS (2021)

ECOBANK (NIG) LTD & ORS v. IDRIS

(2021)LCN/14956(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(KADUNA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, January 20, 2021

CA/K/243/2017

RATIO

APPEAL: CHARACTERISTICS OF A WELL-CRAFTED ISSUE IDENTIFIED FOR DETERMINATION

The characteristics of a well-crafted issue identified for determination in the brief of augment are precision, brevity, accuracy and clarity. See: Uwaifo v. Uwaifo (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 479; Iloabachie v. Iloabachie (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 690. It is clumsy to raise and lump up several questions or issues under one (1) head when it is neater to split those questions into separate and distinct issues provided that each issue so identified was derived from a given ground or grounds of appeal. PER SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A.

PROCESSES: IMPORTANCE OF SERVICE OF COURT PROCESSES

The importance of service of Court processes and indeed the Writ of Summons cannot be underestimated. The Writ of Summons is the foundational structure upon which the entire case is built without which any decision arrived at is rendered invalid if proved or shown that there was non-compliance with regard to the issuance and service of the Writ of summons. See: Kida v. Ogunmola (supra). PER SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A.

PROCESSES: THE VALIDITY OF AN ORIGINATING PROCESS

The validity of an Originating Process in a proceeding before a Court is fundamental as this relate not only, to the competence of the process but the Court itself where the process was filed or initiated, is divested of jurisdiction in those circumstances, to entertain the case. Such issue can be raised at any time. See KIDA v. Ogunmola (Supra). PER SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A.

JURISDICTION: WHAT DETERMINES JURISDICTION

There is the need at this point to take another look at the Writ of Summons and the Statement of claim so as to ascertain what the claim is all about, in that it is the statement of claim that defines the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts. See: Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508, 36; Opiti v. Ogbainor (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 234) 184; Skenconsult v. Okay (1981) 1 SC 6. PER SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A.

COURT: JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT

The National Industrial Court only has jurisdiction over matters involving disputes between employer and employee. See: N.U.E v. BPE (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 525). In Olufuso v. GSDI (2013) 8 WRN 36, it was held that it is only the National Industrial Court that has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine matters relating to or connected with labour and employment. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition defines the word “Connected” to mean “joined”, or “limited” by an intervening substance. See also, Shell Petroleum Development Company v. Abel (2001) LPELR-3205 (SC).
There is thus no similarity of purpose in a claim for damages for defamation and claims relating to labour and employment matters. In the same vein, a thing is “incidental” to another when that thing is dependent upon or appertains to something else. See: Osborn The Concise Law Dictionary 4th ed: page 170 and the decision in Akapo v. Hakeem-Habeeb & Ors. (1992) LPELR-326 (SC), hence the National Industrial Court cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 254 C (1) (a) over cases or matters founded on a claim for damages for defamation of character, rather the High Court of a State can, in exercise of its general jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 272 (1) of the Constitution, can hear and determine such claims, hence the High Court below rightly dismissed the application brought before it, seeking as it were, an order striking out or dismissing the suit before it. PER SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A.

Before Our Lordships:

Hussein Mukhtar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Saidu Tanko Hussaini Justice of the Court of Appeal

Oludotun Adebola Adefope-Okojie Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

ECO BANK NIGERIA LIMITED 2. JOHN B. ATUK 3. EMEKA ONWURAH APPELANT(S)

And

JAMILU IDRIS RESPONDENT(S)

SAIDU TANKO HUSSAINI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): Respondent herein commenced action as the Plaintiff at the High Court of Kaduna State, Zaria Judicial Division and claimed against the Appellants as Defendants jointly and severally:
(1) The sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) only for falsely accusing him and for defamation of his character while still in the employment of the 1st Appellant hence the psychological stress, trauma and inconveniences suffered by him as a result.
(2) Respondent further claimed the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand) naira, as cost for filing, instituting and prosecuting the suit.

Upon the Originating processes including the Writ of Summons and the Statement of claim being served, the Appellants as Defendants entered conditional appearance and filed a joint defence and counter-claim. Further to that the defence also filed an application, a Motion on Notice, dated the 19/7/2016 and filed on the 20/7/2016 wherein they prayed for two reliefs, which stated briefly, are that:
(i) that the suit filed by the Respondent at that Court be struck out or dismissed as the Court lack

jurisdiction to entertain industrial/employment related matters;
(ii) that the suit be struck out or dismissed on account of same being an abuse of the process of Court.

By way of the alternative prayer No. 3 he also prayed that the suit be struck out or dismissed for the failure of the Respondent as Plaintiff to seek leave of the Court to serve the Writ of Summons and other processes out of Jurisdiction on the 2nd Appellant/Defendant who reside in Kano State.

Expectedly, the Motion on Notice was supported by an affidavit and other documents attached to it as Exhibits. In response to the application, the Respondent filed a counter-affidavit in opposition and this prompted the filing of a further and better affidavit by the Appellants in support of their Motion on Notice.

The Court below, after hearing the application on 12/1/2017 in a considered ruling delivered on the 1/2/2017 was constrained to dismiss same for lacking in merit.

It is against this ruling and order, the appeal was lodged to this Court vide the Notice of appeal filed on the 13/12/2017, on four (4) grounds as at pages 227-232 of the record of appeal.

Parties on both sides have filed and exchanged their briefs of argument after transmission of record, in terms of:
(1) Appellant’s brief of argument filed on the 20/10/2017 but deemed as properly filed and served on the 29th January, 2020.
(2) Respondent’s brief of argument filed on the 14/3/2018 further deemed on the 29th January, 2020 as properly filed and served.
(3) Appellant’s Reply brief filed on the 8th May, 2018 was further deemed on the 19th January, 2020 as properly filed and served.

The Appellants in addition, have submitted a list of authorities which they filed through their counsel on the 12th April, 2019 to buttress their submission on the question whether the National Industrial Court (NIC), to the exclusion of all other Courts, has jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim or dispute arising from a purely labour/employment related issues.

At the hearing on the 19th January, 2020, learned counsel respectively, adopted their briefs. In adopting his brief of argument, Mr. O. J. Opawale (with Vincent Saligbo) for the Appellants, urged us to allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Court.

Contrariwise is the submission made by counsel for the Respondent, Usman Shehu (with Umma J. Salihu) who urged us to dismiss this appeal and affirm the Ruling of the High Court below.

The Appellants, in their brief of argument formulated two (2) issues for determination, as follows:-
“(1) Whether the Plaintiff’s claim (now Respondent) dated the 1/2/2014 expressly and impliedly falls within Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (Third Alternation Act) which exclusively vests jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court in respect of issues/matters arising from workplace dispute and whether the honourable Court is competent and seized of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and whether suit No. KN/37/2014 between the 1st Appellant and Respondent before the National Industrial Court Kano in respect of the subject matter in the instant suit does not amount to an abuse of Court process so as to rob the lower Court the jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with the extant suit, and whether the decision in the case of Ainabebholo v. Edsu Workers Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative Society & Ors. (2015)

LPELR – 24513 (CA) pages 35-37, paragraphs G-E is not on all fours with the extant case on appeal (Grounds 2 and 3).
(2) Whether the condition precedent to the invocation of the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the suit ab initio has been complied with in view of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 97, 98 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, LFN 2004 and Order 3 Rule 9 of the High Court of Kaduna State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2007 regarding the issuance and service of the Originating processes on the 2nd Defendant.” (Ground 1).

I can see from issue No. 1 reproduced above, that there are four (4) questions in one (1), all lumped up together under one (1) or single heading or issue. The characteristics of a well-crafted issue identified for determination in the brief of augment are precision, brevity, accuracy and clarity. See: Uwaifo v. Uwaifo (2005) 3 NWLR (Pt. 913) 479; Iloabachie v. Iloabachie (2005) 13 NWLR (Pt. 943) 690. It is clumsy to raise and lump up several questions or issues under one (1) head when it is neater to split those questions into separate and

distinct issues provided that each issue so identified was derived from a given ground or grounds of appeal.

In the brief of argument for the Respondent are two (2) issues raised or identified by him for determination. These are contained at page 5 of the said brief thus:-
(1) Whether or not there is proper service on the 2nd Appellant of the processes of the then High Court No. 2 G.R.A, Zaria now High Court No. 1 (Grounds 1 & 4).
(2) Whether or not the Respondents claim facts within Section 254C (1) and not Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution as amended 2011? (Grounds 2 & 3).

The two sets of issues referred to above taken together can be reformulated and this, I have done in following manner, namely:
(1) Whether the High Court of Kaduna State can entertain a claim or dispute in respect of matters arising from workplace between master and servant given the provisions of Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution (Third Alteration Act)?
(2) Given the case before the National Industrial Court (NIC) in Suit No. KN/37/2014 between the 1st Appellant and the Respondent, whether the suit at the High Court of Kaduna State

No. KDH/Z/404/2014 on the same subject – matter does not constitute an abuse of Court process.
(3) Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent had complied with the requirement for leave to serve the originating processes outside jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 97, 98 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act and Order 3 Rule 9 of High Court of Kaduna State and whether the 2nd Appellant as 2nd Defendant was properly served in those circumstances?

I will first take on issue No. 3 reformulated above. The Appellants in their brief of argument did not mince words but conceded to the fact that leave was indeed sought and granted for the Respondent to serve processes of Court on the 2nd Appellant in Kano but stated that the 2nd Appellant was never served those processes as there was no evidence to support any service effected on the 2nd Appellant and yet the trial Court proceeded without proof. We were referred to Sections 131 – 133 of the Evidence Act and Order 7 Rule 13 (1) and (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Kaduna State, on the need for the Respondent to provide evidence of service on the 2nd Appellant and this duty, is not

discharged merely because the 2nd Appellant had knowledge of the existence of the suit against him. It is important, as argued by counsel, to have the Writ and other Originating processes served on the 2nd Appellant. He relied on the case of Otobaimere v. Akporeme (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 581) 591; Ononye v. Chukwuma(2005) 17 NWLR (Pt. 953) 90.

On the question whether the condition precedent to the service of Writ outside jurisdiction was carried out, learned Appellants’ counsel in reference to the Writ of Summons at page 1 of the record argued that the Writ of Summons, on the face of it, only command the Appellants’ (as Defendants) to answer the Writ within “21 days” whereas the law require of the person to be served outside jurisdiction, to respond to the Writ within “30 days”. Relying therefore on the decision in Kida v. Ogunmola (2006) NWLR (Pt. 997) (SC), it was argued that there was failure of compliance by reason of the failure to endorse the “Writ by 30 days” within which the 2nd Appellant was to respond to the Writ hence the condition precedent, to the service of the Writ out of

Jurisdiction had not been met.

In relation to Sections 97, 98 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, LFN 2004 and Order 3 Rule 9 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Kaduna State, it is argued that those provisions did not only envisage obtaining leave to issue and serve but actual service of those processes. In this case, it is argued that there is no proof of service showing that the processes were effected on the 2nd Appellant hence the Court below, in absence of such proof was in error to rule otherwise; and the Court has no jurisdiction over the person (2nd Appellant) who was not properly brought into the case through a valid Writ of Summons. We were referred to Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Dr. Babatunde Adesanya & 1 Or (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 109) 250, 293 para. D. We were urged to hold that the Court below cannot properly entertain the case without the Originating process i.e the Writ of Summons being first and properly endorsed for service out of jurisdiction on the 2nd Appellant. The decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim(1962) All NLR (Pt.4) was cited and relied on.

The importance of service of Court

processes and indeed the Writ of Summons cannot be underestimated. The Writ of Summons is the foundational structure upon which the entire case is built without which any decision arrived at is rendered invalid if proved or shown that there was non-compliance with regard to the issuance and service of the Writ of summons. See: Kida v. Ogunmola (supra). The complaint of the Appellants is that the Writ of Summons, in relation to the 2nd Appellant was not properly endorsed to read “30 days” rather the Writ was endorsed “21 days”. The Validity of the Writ of Summons is therefore the issue. The validity of an Originating Process in a proceeding before a Court is fundamental as this relate not only, to the competence of the process but the Court itself where the process was filed or initiated, is divested of jurisdiction in those circumstances, to entertain the case. Such issue can be raised at any time. See KIDA v. Ogunmola (Supra). I hasten to observe however that the complaint that the Writ of Summons was not endorsed to read “30 days” for service outside jurisdiction, only came up vide counsel’s brief

of argument at page 12. The issue was not raised or canvassed at the Court below, let alone a ruling given on it by that Court. See: Adegoke Motors Ltd v. Adesanya (supra). It is thus a new issue before this Court. Be that as it may, questions touching on the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts can be raised at any point in time, even on appeal. Learned Appellant’s counsel seems to take advantage of this principle when he raised before us for the first time the issue that the Writ of Summons not having been endorsed to be served within “30 days” out of jurisdiction, the same was not a valid process of Court. If at all leave to serve the Writ out of jurisdiction was sought and granted the question whether the Writ was endorsed to be served within “30 days” becomes a technical issue to my mind but parties should not chase technicalities rather, parties should lean, on the side of substance which the Courts are concerned with. In any case, have the Appellants suffered any injury on account of the Writ not having been endorsed for service “within 30 days”? That is the question. The Omission to endorse the Writ with

“30 days” of which the Appellant has made heavy weather of, should be discountenanced as an issue bordering on technicalities.
The core issue this Court was called upon to address is whether leave was sought and granted at the Court below to enable service to be effected out of jurisdiction on the 2nd Appellant. That indeed is one of the grounds which prompted the application to be brought and by which the Appellants also sought to have the suit struck out or dismissed and not by the new issue just canvassed in the brief. See paragraph (e) at page 151 of the record of appeal.
Parties and their counsel must be consistent in the manner by which they present their cases. They should not be seen to blow hot and cold at the same time or speak from both ends of the month. See:Amana Suit Ltd v. PDP(2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 453.
Unarguably, from the record of appeal before us it is clear to me that leave was sought and granted to effect service on the 2nd Appellant who reside in Kano. At pages 38-40 of the record of appeal is the Exparte application put in by the Respondent who sought, as it were, leave to issue and serve the 2nd

Appellant at Eco Bank Nig. Ltd, along Zaria Road. Upon the application being moved or argued on the 2nd December, 2014, same was granted in terms of the enrolled order at pages 193-194 of the record of appeal after which the 2nd Appellant was served with those Originating Processes. This fact of service on the 2nd Appellant is unassailable given the fact that the 2nd Appellant himself, in the affidavit deposed to on his behalf has admitted those facts of service made on him as per paragraph 4(g) of the affidavit deposed to in support of the Motion on Notice at pages 153-154 of the record. Facts admitted are deemed as established without further proof. See Egbunike & Anor v. ACB Ltd (1995) 2 SCNJ 58. Issue No. 3 is thus, resolved against the Appellants.

I will now take on issues 1 and 2 in that order. The question presented by issue No. 1 is whether or not the High Court of Kaduna State can entertain claims arising from labour or employment related matters.

According to the Appellants the claim before the Court below arose from industrial dispute relative to labour and employment matters between the Appellants on the one hand and the Respondent on

the other hand is it the National Industrial Court (NIC) that has jurisdiction over the matter and not the High Court of Kaduna State. For the Respondent, it was argued that a claim founded on defamation of character of the Respondent, is a claim within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Kaduna State to entertain contrary to the submissions made for the Appellants who relied on Section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution of FRN (Third Alteration Act).

At pages 3-6 of the record of appeal is the statement of claim. By the averments contained at paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19, 20 21 and 22, the Respondent as plaintiff alleged that the Appellants have made defamatory remarks about his person of unwholesome acts or dealings which the Respondent is alleged to have

had with the customers of the 1st Appellant. The Respondent is alleged to have gained monetary or financial benefits from that deal. Although Respondent has described that allegation as false, he nonetheless contended that those accusations were defamatory of his character. He (Respondent) was still in the employment of the 1st Appellant when those allegations were made but he resigned his appointment with the 1st Appellant and instituted this suit. His claim against the Appellants is at paragraph 23 of the statement of claim at pages 5-6 of the record of appeal, wherein his claim is for:
“(1) … the sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) being general damages for falsely accusing the plaintiff and defaming his character while in the employment of the 1st defendant which caused the plaintiff psychological stress, trauma and inconveniences as a result of the defendants’ act.
(2) … the Sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as cost of this action.”

The live question, given those claims, is, which of the Courts, is it the High Court of the State or the National Industrial Court (NIC) that has

jurisdiction over the matter, i.e. a claim of false accusation and defamation of character of the Respondent while still in the employment of the 1st Appellant? Section 254 C (1) (2) (3) of the Constitution of FRN (1999) as amended, vest on the National Industrial Court with the jurisdiction to entertain and determine matters spelt out therein.

It has been argued for the Appellants that since the alleged defamatory remarks were made or uttered in the course of the employment of the Respondent with the 1st Appellant at his workplace, those remarks or utterances related to or were connected with his (Respondent’s) employment and for which reason it is the National Industrial Court and not the High Court of the State that has jurisdiction over the matter. Learned counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Keystone Bank Ltd v. Oyewale (2014) LPELR-23612 (CA) and the decision in Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria v. Dr. Alfred Ehigiegba (2018) LPELR-44972 (CA) among others. Learned Respondent’s counsel argued per contra and submitted that the National Industrial Court (NIC) has no jurisdiction to hear cases

of defamation of character as in the instant case on appeal, rather, the High Court of the state, given the provisions of Section 272 of the Constitution (as amended) has jurisdiction in this case.

Provisions of Section 254C of the Constitution of FRN 1999 (as amended) which is directly on point is paragraph (a) of Section 254C(1). The National Industrial Court thus can exercise exclusive jurisdiction in matters among others, “relating to or connected with any of the items covered by paragraph (a) of Section 254 C (1), that is to say: matters relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service including health safety, welfare or labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto. It is clear from the list of items specified at Section 254 C (1) of the Constitution and indeed Section 254 C (2) (3), over which the NIC had jurisdiction to entertain, cases or matters which border on defamation of character is not one of those items and it should not be so construed to confer jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court (NIC) merely because those

defamatory remarks were made in the course of Respondent’s employment with the 1st Appellant and thus, the defamatory remarks and claims for damages thereto should be entertained by the NIC, is an attempt to expand the jurisdiction of the NIC beyond that which was carved out or created under Section 254C(1)(2)and(3) of the Constitution.
The National Industrial Court only has jurisdiction over matters involving disputes between employer and employee. See: N.U.E v. BPE (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 525). In Olufuso v. GSDI (2013) 8 WRN 36, it was held that it is only the National Industrial Court that has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine matters relating to or connected with labour and employment. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition defines the word “Connected” to mean “joined”, or “limited” by an intervening substance. See also, Shell Petroleum Development Company v. Abel (2001) LPELR-3205 (SC).
There is thus no similarity of purpose in a claim for damages for defamation and claims relating to labour and employment matters. In the same vein, a thing is “incidental” to another when that

thing is dependent upon or appertains to something else. See: Osborn The Concise Law Dictionary 4th ed: page 170 and the decision in Akapo v. Hakeem-Habeeb & Ors. (1992) LPELR-326 (SC), hence the National Industrial Court cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 254 C (1) (a) over cases or matters founded on a claim for damages for defamation of character, rather the High Court of a State can, in exercise of its general jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 272 (1) of the Constitution, can hear and determine such claims, hence the High Court below rightly dismissed the application brought before it, seeking as it were, an order striking out or dismissing the suit before it. Decision in Ainabebholo v. Edsu Workers, Farms (2015) LPELR – 24513 (CA) does not apply. Issue No. 1, thus is resolved against the Appellants.

The question whether or not the Suit before the High Court below is an abuse of the process of Court in the light of the suit before the National Industrial Court in suit No. KN 37/2014, should also be resolved against the Appellants under issue No. 2. The said suit or judgment in KN 37/2014 is at pages 157-171 of the record of

appeal, wherein the principal claim against the 1st Appellant by the Respondent herein as plaintiff in that case was for (1) terminal benefits (2) the sum of N536,743.53K as relocation allowance. Those claims no doubt, are labour or employment related issues and fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court by reason of Section 254 C (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution of FRN, 1999 (as amended) as contradistinguished from the case giving rise to this appeal i.e Suit No. KDH/Z/404/2014.
An abuse of Court process, in regard to multiple actions between the same parties on the same subject-matter may arise when a party improperly uses judicial process to the irritation, annoyance, and harassment of his opponent not only in respect of the same subject-matter but also in respect of the issue’s in the other action or actions. See: Okafor v. Attorney General, Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 659, 681; Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156;Ikine v. Edjerode (2001) LPELR-1479 (SC). The case on appeal is not only differentiable by the subject-matter but the issues involved in the case on appeal are not the same as those

in suit No. KN/37/2014 decided at the National Industrial Court. To this extent therefore, issue No. 2 is similarly resolved against the Appellant.

The appeal having been resolved against the Appellants on all issues, the appeal fails and same is dismissed. The ruling or decision of the High Court below delivered on the 1st February, 2017 in Suit No: KDH/Z/404/2014 is affirmed with cost assessed in the sum of N50,000.00 against them (Appellants) and for the Respondent.
Ordered accordingly.

HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in advance, the judgment of my learned brother, Sa’idu Tanko Husaini, JCA. I am in complete agreement with him that the appeal lacks substance and should be dismissed.
I dismiss the appeal with same order as to costs as made in the judgment. I also adopt other consequential orders made therein.

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.: I have had a preview of the judgment of my learned brother, SAIDU TANKO HUSAINI, JCA where the facts leading to this appeal have been set out. It is trite that in the determination of the subject matter jurisdiction of the lower

Court, recourse is had to the reliefs sought, as contained in the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff, the Respondent in this case. See A/G Federation v A/G Lagos (2017) 8 NWLR Part 1566 Page 20 at 46 Para E-F per Peter-Odili JSC; James v. INEC (2015) 12 NWLR Part 1474 Page 538 at 597 Para G-H per Mahmoud Mohammed CJN.

The claim before the lower Court was not connected with labour and employment matters, for which it is the National Industrial Court only that has jurisdiction. See: NUE v. BPE (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 525); Olufuso v. GSDI (2013) 8 WRN 36. The claim was for damages for defamation of character, which it is the High Court of the State that, by Section 272(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), has jurisdiction to entertain. The lower Court thus rightly dismissed the objection of the Appellant challenging its jurisdiction.

For this and the fuller reasons given by my learned brother, this appeal, I also hold, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The decision of the lower Court delivered on the 1st of February, 2017 in Suit No: KDH/Z/404/2014 is consequently affirmed, with costs to the Respondent as awarded by my learned brother.

Appearances:

J. OPAWALE, with him, VINCENT SOLIBA For Appellant(s)

USMAN SHEHU, with him, UMMA SALIHU For Respondent(s)