ECOBANK NIGERIA PLC v. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC & ORS.
(2011)LCN/4702(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Tuesday, the 12th day of July, 2011
CA/L/371/2009
RATIO
JURISDICTION: WHAT CIRCUMSCRIBES THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
All courts in this country are created either by the constitution or by statute. Accordingly, apart from other provisions for the establishment and composition of these courts, the constitution or the statute, as the case may be imbue these courts with jurisdiction. Each court has its Jurisdiction circumscribed by the relevant law setting it up. No court has Jurisdiction at large. Thus every court must satisfy itself that the matter brought before it is within its Jurisdictional competence, else every step taken by the court including the Judgment thereof, no matter how well conducted and well delivered, becomes a nullity ab initio. See Fumudoh v. Aburo (1991) 9 N.W.L.R. (pt.214) 210. PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: DUTY OF THE JUDGE IN A CASE WHENEVER THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS RAISED
Whenever issue of Jurisdiction is raised before any court, it is the duty of the Judge to resolve that issue first before making further orders in the matter. For any court to ignore an objection on Jurisdiction is tantamount to a waste of precious judicial time. It has been held in several authorities by this court and the Apex Court that issue of Jurisdiction being a threshold or cardinal issue; it can be raised at any time during the proceedings and even for the first time on appeal either in this court or even at the Supreme Court. See Rivers state Government v. special Konsult (2005) 7 N.W.L.R. (pt 923) 145; Okike v. LPDG (2005) 15 N.W.L.R. (pt 949) 471; Tizav. Begha (2005) 15 N.W.L.R. (pt.953) 163. PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A.
RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE: DUTY OF THE COURTS TO GIVE THE WORDINGS OF A STATUTE THEIR NORMAL OR ORDINARY GRAMMATICAL MEANING WHERE THE WORDS ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS
In interpreting statutes, courts are enjoined to give the wordings of a statute their normal or ordinary grammatical meaning especially where the words are clear and unambiguous. See Agbareh v. Mimra (2008) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt.1071) 378. Thus where a person, whether natural or legal enters into banking transaction or relationship with a bank, any dispute arising therefrom can be ventilated at the State High Court or the Federal High Court as can be gleaned from the Proviso thereof. PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A.
INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER: MEANING OF INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER
In NDIC v. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (Supra) this court had interpreted the words “individual customer” to include a bank where that bank places money in another bank to yield interest. Uwaifo JCA (as he then was) at page 756 of (1997) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt.490) 755 has this to say: “It must be taken, I think, that by depositing money with the Appellant bank for a given period so as to earn interest payable by that bank, the Respondent (though a bank) created the relationship in respect of the transaction of an individual/customer and its bank”. PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHETHER IT IS THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE JURIDICTION OF THE COURT
It is trite that in determining the Jurisdiction of a court, it is the statement of claim that the court looks at. Where the suit is commenced by an originating summons, it is the affidavit in support that should be looked at. See Onuoha v. Kaduna Refining & Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (2005) 6 N.W.L.R. (pt.921) 393. PER JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A.
Before Their Lordships
HUSSEIN MUKHTARJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
JOHN INYANG OKOROJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMAJustice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
ECOBANK NIGERIA PLCAppellant(s)
AND
1. INTERCONTINENTAL BANK PLC
2. PRO-OIL LIMITED
3. MS OLAYINKA OLAGBAJURespondent(s)
JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of the Lagos State High Court in Suit No. LD/764/2008 delivered on 10th February, 2009 by Hon. Justice A. Olateru-Olagbegi.
The 1st Respondent herein which was the Claimant at the court below instituted a suit against the Appellant as the 3rd Defendant and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as the 1st and 2nd Defendants respectively. The 1st
Respondent in its statement of claim dated 30th June, 2008 claimed against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows:
“(1) The sum of USD$889, 430 or its Naira equivalent as at october 2009 at the rate of N130 per USD totaling N115, 620, 900 being the sum realized from the sale of the 4, 500 metric tones of Low pour Fuel oil financed by the claimant which the 1st Defendant fraudulently diverted to the 3rd Defendant.
(2) Interest on the amount claimed in “I” above at the rate of 21% per annum being the agreed interest for the facilities from 1st November, 2005 till Judgment and thereafter at the same rate till liquidation-of the Judgment debt.
OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
(3) The sum of N140, 359, 672.44 as at 31st day of May, 2008, being the amount owed the claimant by tie 1st and 2nd Defendants on account of the facilities granted the 1st Defendant by the claimant which was granted by the 2nd Defendant; and
(4) Interest on the amount claimed in “3” above at the rate of 31% per annum being the agreed interest rate for the facilities from 1st June, 2008 till Judgment and thereafter till liquidation of the Judgment debt’.
Upon service of the originating processes on the Defendants, the Appellant filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11th July, 2008 challenging the Jurisdiction of the Lagos State High Court to entertain the claim against the Appellant. After hearing argument from both counsel for the parties, the learned trial Judge delivered his Ruling on 10th February, 2009 dismissing the preliminary objection and held that he has Jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondent’s claim against the Appellant.
The Appellant, being dissatisfied with this Ruling, filed Notice of Appeal on 13th February, 2009 against the Ruling. As can be seen, the said Notice of Appeal was filed within time. Two grounds of appeal are contained in the said Notice. In keeping with the practice in this court, parties filed and exchanged briefs. In the brief settled by Fred Onuoha Esq. on behalf of the Appellant, one issue has been distilled for the determination of this appeal. The lone issue as contained on page 3 of the brief states:-
“Whether or not the lower court has Jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the 1st Respondent (a bank) against the Appellant (also a bank) in view of the provisions of Sections 251 (1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999”.
In the 1st Respondent’s brief filed by its counsel, Nick Omoye Esq., the same issue is formulated but couched differently thus:-
“Whether the 1st Respondents claim in the suit before the court below is within the Jurisdiction of the Lagos State High Court or the Federal High Court”.
The learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, Ubong-Abasi Inyang Esq. simply adopts the lone issue formulated by both the Appellant and 1st Respondent. (See Para 3.1 p.2 of his brief).
There is no doubt that only one issue is relevant to the determination of this appeal. So as has been unanimously adopted by all the parties herein, I shall determine this appeal based on this lone issue.
The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the lower court has no Jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the 1st Respondent (a bank) against the Appellant (also a bank) on the facts and circumstances of this case because the alleged “simple debt” claim or claim for “tracing” as suggested by the learned trial Judge instituted by the 1st Respondent against the Appellant did not arise from a banker/customer relationship between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent or any other relationship at all. That by Section 251(d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Jurisdiction to entertain a suit between one bank against another bank is prima facie within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Referring to paragraphs 26(a), 27, 29, 33 and 36 of the 1st Respondent’s Statement of Claim, the learned counsel for the Appellant posited that it is not alleged anywhere in the statement of claim that the basis of the alleged claim for “simple debt” or “tracing” by the 1st Respondent against the Appellant arose out of a banker/customer relationship between the 1st Respondent and the Appellant. Relying on the case of Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria v. NDIC (1999) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt. 591) 333 or 370-371, learned counsel submitted that it is the nature of the transaction between the parties that determine which court has Jurisdiction to try the case. It is his further contention that in this particular case, there is no transaction between the 1st Respondent and the appellant.
Submitting further, counsel cited the case of Trade Bank Plc v. Benilux Nig. Ltd. (2003) 9 N.W.L.R. (pt.825) 416 and relied on it where the Supreme Court held that the State High Court has no Jurisdiction in matters provided under Section 230(1) (d) of Decree 107, 1997 (now Section 251(1) (d) of 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, except disputes between an individual customer and his bank in respect of a transaction between the individual customer and the bank. Also, in NDIC v. Federal Mortgage Bank (1997) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt.490) 755, counsel submitted, it was held that a bank can be a customer of another bank where either of them places cash in the other for interest purposes.
Finally, relying on the case of S.B.N. Ltd. v. De Llunch (2004) 18 N.W.L.R. (pt.905) 341, learned counsel for the Appellant urged this court to hold that this matter between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent is squarely within the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court only and that the issue be resolved in favour of the Appellant.
In response to the submission of the Appellant, the learned counsel for the 1rt Respondent submitted that in determining the Jurisdiction of a court, it is the statement of claim and the reliefs that are considered. He relies on the case of Onuoha v. Kaduna Refining and Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (2005) 6 N.W.L.R. (pt.921) 393 at 407. That from the statement of claim of the 1st Respondent, it will be seen that the 1st Respondent’s claim is for the recovery of the debt owed the 1st Respondent by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents on account of the facilities granted to the 2nd Respondent by the 1st Respondent for the purchase and export of Low Pour Fuel Oil. That the 1st Respondent is merely tracing the proceeds of the sale of the oil to the Appellant.
Contending further, learned counsel argued that in the exercise of its equitable Jurisdiction, the Lagos State High Court has the Jurisdiction to make tracing orders against the Appellant in respect of the proceeds of the Low pour Fuel Oil which was financed by the 1st Respondent, and over which the 1st Respondent had a lien and which the 2nd and 3rd Respondents sold and diverted the proceeds of the sale to the Appellant- Citing Paget’s Law of Banking, 8s’ Edition at page 86, he submitted that a court of record has the powers to make tracing order in respect of funds to which a party is entitled to, and which has been fraudulently, wrongly or mistakenly transferred to a third party.
Also citing FMB v. NDIC (Supra) and NDIC v. FMB (Supra) the learned counsel submitted that both the Federal High Court and State High Court have Jurisdiction in matters between a bank and its customers whether or not the customer is itself a bank or not. He also relies on Jammal Steel Structure v. A.G.B. Ltd. (1973) 1 All NLR 852 at 864 and NDIC v. Okam Enterprises Ltd. (2004) 10 N.W.L.R. (pt.880) 107.
Learned counsel submitted finally that this is a case of money had and received and as such the matter is within the Jurisdiction of the Lagos State High Court relying on the case of Owena Bank Nig. Plc v, Punjab National Bank (2000) 5 N.W.L.R. (pt.658) 635 or 664-665. He then urged this court to hold that the Lagos State High Court has Jurisdiction to entertain this matter.
The 2nd and 3rd Respondents made their submissions through their counsel. It was learned counsel’s submission that the 2nd and 3rd Respondents align themselves with the submission of the Appellant herein. He contends further that it is the statement of claim which determines the Jurisdiction of a court but in the instant case, the statement of claim has not disclosed that there exists a banker/customer relationship between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent, relying on the cases of Usman v. Baba (2005) 5 N.W.L.R. (pt. 917) 113 at 134 and CBN v. SAP Nig. Ltd. (2005) 3 N.W.L.R. (pt.911) 152 at 176. He urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant.
The Appellant had filed a reply brief in response to the brief of the 1st Respondent in this case. Firstly, he submits that it is only the constitution and statute that gives Jurisdiction to a court and outside that, no court can assume Jurisdiction on any matter on the mere ground of “equitable Jurisdiction” and that such equitable Jurisdiction can only be assumed within the boundaries of the Jurisdiction conferred by the 1999 Constitution. He refers to the cases of APG Ltd. v. NDIC (NUB) Ltd. (2006) 15 N.W.L.R. (pt.1002) 404; Adelekan v. Ecu-Line NV (2006) 12 N.W.L.R. (pt.993) 33; Fagbola v. KCCIMA (2006) 6 N.W.L.R. (pt.977) 433 and Abdul-Raheem v. Oloruntoba Oju (2006) 15 N.W.L.R. (pt.1003) 581 .
Secondly, that the Appellant does not dispute the power of the lower court or any other court to make tracing order but that the tracing order can only be made by the Federal High Court and not the Lagos State High Court in the instant case.
On the authorities cited by the 1st Respondent, learned counsel for the Appellant urged this court to hold that they do not support the 1st Respondent’s case to the extent that the 1st Respondent wants this court to see a banker/customer relationship between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent as none exists. He urged this court to allow this appeal.
All courts in this country are created either by the constitution or by statute. Accordingly, apart from other provisions for the establishment and composition of these courts, the constitution or the statute, as the case may be imbue these courts with jurisdiction. Each court has its Jurisdiction circumscribed by the relevant law setting it up. No court has Jurisdiction at large. Thus every court must satisfy itself that the matter brought before it is within its Jurisdictional competence, else every step taken by the court including the Judgment thereof, no matter how well conducted and well delivered, becomes a nullity ab initio. See Fumudoh v. Aburo (1991) 9 N.W.L.R. (pt.214) 210.
Whenever issue of Jurisdiction is raised before any court, it is the duty of the Judge to resolve that issue first before making further orders in the matter. For any court to ignore an objection on Jurisdiction is tantamount to a waste of precious judicial time. It has been held in several authorities by this court and the Apex Court that issue of Jurisdiction being a threshold or cardinal issue; it can be raised at any time during the proceedings and even for the first time on appeal either in this court or even at the Supreme Court. See Rivers state Government v. special Konsult (2005) 7 N.W.L.R. (pt 923) 145; Okike v. LPDG (2005) 15 N.W.L.R. (pt 949) 471; Tizav. Begha (2005) 15 N.W.L.R. (pt.953) 163.
In the instant appeal, the relevant provision is section 251(1) (d) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. The section provides:-
“251 (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this constitution and in addition to such other Jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise Jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and Matters –
(d) Connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bill of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures.
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and the bank.
Without any modicum of doubt, the purport of the above constitutional provision is to confer exclusive Jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in matters pertaining to banking, banks and other financial institutions including the Central Bank of Nigeria. It can also be gleaned from this provision that matters between one bank and another bank are within this exclusiveness of the Federal High Court. Both parties in this appeal agree that this is the position. I shall therefore not dwell long on this aspect.
The other aspect of this provision has to do with the proviso therein. The intendment of the said proviso is to the effect that where there is a dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between them, this exclusiveness does not apply. In interpreting statutes, courts are enjoined to give the wordings of a statute their normal or ordinary grammatical meaning especially where the words are clear and unambiguous. See Agbareh v. Mimra (2008) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt.1071) 378. Thus where a person, whether natural or legal enters into banking transaction or relationship with a bank, any dispute arising therefrom can be ventilated at the State High Court or the Federal High Court as can be gleaned from the Proviso thereof. In NDIC v. Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria (Supra) this court had interpreted the words “individual customer” to include a bank where that bank places money in another bank to yield interest. Uwaifo JCA (as he then was) at page 756 of (1997) 2 N.W.L.R. (pt.490) 755 has this to say:
“It must be taken, I think, that by depositing money with the Appellant bank for a given period so as to earn interest payable by that bank, the Respondent (though a bank) created the relationship in respect of the transaction of an individual/customer and its bank”.
The above erudite position was given the Apex Court’s stamp of correctness in Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria v. NDIC (Supra) where
Ogwuegu, JSC held at pages 370-371as follows:-
“I entirely agree with the court below on the above conclusion. One has to look at the relative nature of the transaction between the parties”.
I shall take the hint of the Apex Court in the above case by looking at the nature of the transaction between the parties in the instant appeal. But before then, let me say that before the proviso can apply, it must be shown that there is a banker/customer relationship between the individual and the bank, whether the individual is a person or also a bank.
I now go to the nature of the transaction between the parties. It is trite that in determining the Jurisdiction of a court, it is the statement of claim that the court looks at. Where the suit is commenced by an originating summons, it is the affidavit in support that should be looked at. See Onuoha v. Kaduna Refining & Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (2005) 6 N.W.L.R. (pt.921) 393.
In the instant case, I have carefully perused the statement of claim contained in the record of appeal and it appears to me that paragraphs 26(d), 27, 29, 33 and 36 are relevant and I shall reproduce them hereunder:-
“26(d)The 1st Defendant finally diverted the inflow from the sale of the products from Citizens Bank to the 3rd defendant without the knowledge and consent of the Claimant.
27. The Claimant avers that the f Defendant collected the proceeds of the sale of the Low Pour Fuel Oil with knowledge of the Claimant’s interest in the proceeds of the sale of the products.
29. The Claimant avers that the 3rd Defendant withheld the total sum of $889, 463 realized from the sale of Low Pour Fuel Oil financed by the Claimant and the sum still with the 3rd Defendant.
33. The Claimant avers that the 3rd Defendant acknowledged and admitted receiving the proceeds of the sale of the products from the 1st Defendant.
36. The Claimant further avers that despite repeated demands from the 3rd Defendant to return the proceeds of the sale of the products which the 1st and 2nd Defendants diverted to the 3rd Defendant, the 3rd Defendant refused to return the foreign exchange to the Claimant”.
The above paragraphs of the statement of claim represent where the relationship between the Appellant and the first Respondent is purported to arise. Also that is where the “relative nature of the transaction between the parties” can be ascertained. As was rightfully submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant, there is nowhere alleged in the statement of claim that the 1st Respondent’s claim against the Appellant for “simple debt” or “tracing” arose out of a banker/customer relationship between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent. What really is the relative nature of the transaction between the Appellant and 1st Respondent? Honestly speaking, the statement of claim has not disclosed the nature of the transaction between them. Quite clearly, there is, from the statement of claim, a banker/customer relationship between the 1st Respondent and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. Definitely, there is none with the Appellant. The facts as averred in the statement of claim clearly show that this matter as between the 1st Respondent (on one hand) and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents (on the other hand) can conveniently be ventilated before the Lagos State High Court or the Federal High Court depending on the choice of the parties. This is so because the Apex Court has held in Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria v. NDIC (Supra) that claims made by a bank against its customer and vice-versa clearly falls not just within the Jurisdiction of the State High Court but also within the concurrent Jurisdiction of both the High Court of a State and the Federal High Court. As it stands, where there is no banker/customer relationship between the parties, it appears the proviso does not avail a party. The Apex Court had put the matter beyond doubt when it held in Trade Bank Plc v. Benilux Nig. Ltd. (2003) 9 N.W.L.R. (pt.825) 416 at 430 that:-
“The State High Court has no Jurisdiction in matters provided under Section 230(1) (d) of Decree 107 except disputes between an individual customer and his bank in respect of a transaction between the individual and the bank. In other words,’ Section 230(2) (d) of Decree 107 provides a limitation to the general and all embracing Jurisdiction of a State High Court. Items listed under Section 230(1) (d) of Decree 107 can be determined, exclusively by the Federal High Court”.
That was the position of the Supreme Court when considering Section 230(1) (d) of Decree 107 of 1997 which is in pari materia with Section 251 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. I have carefully considered all the authorities cited in this matter by both parties beginning from NDIC v. FMB (Supra), FMB v. NDIC (Supra), NDIC v. Okan Enterprises Ltd. (Supra) and Owema Bank Nig. Plc v. Punjab Natural Bank (Supra) and I am of a well informed opinion that they speak the same language and agree that the proviso applies to cases where there is a banker/customer relationship even where the customer is also a bank. Where no such relationship can be shown, then any dispute between a bank and another bank is squarely within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Such situation is the fate of this appeal. There is absolutely no scintilla of banker/customer relationship between the 1st Respondent and the Appellant. The statement of claim has not disclosed any transaction between them. Thus the dispute between the 1st Respondent and the Appellant is, in my candid opinion outside the proviso to Section 251(1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The dispute, whatever it is, is between a bank and another bank, period. Therefore, the resolution of that dispute is squarely and exclusively within the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. That is the inevitable outcome of this appeal. The Lagos State High Court lacks Jurisdiction to entertain a claim between the 1st Respondent and the Appellant there being no evidence of banker/customer relationship between them. Before the Lagos State High Court can exercise its equitable Jurisdiction of tracing, it must first have Jurisdiction to hear the matter before it. This is not the case here.
On the whole, there is merit in this appeal and is hereby allowed. The Ruling of the Lagos State High Court delivered on 10th February 2009 by Hon. Justice A. Olateru-Olagbegi as touches the Appellant only is hereby set aside. I award costs of N30, 000.00 in favour of the Appellant against the 1st Respondent.
HUSSEIN MUKHTAR, J.C.A.: I entirely agree with the well reasoned judgment of my learned brother Okoro, JCA just rendered and the inevitable conclusion arrived thereat.
Section 251 (1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) is very explicit on the exclusiveness of the Federal High Court’s jurisdiction in, inter alia, matters connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another. The action between the appellant and the 1st respondent being between one bank and another is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
This appeal is clearly meritorious and succeeds per force. I adopt the more detailed reasoning in the lead judgment in allowing this appeal. I also subscribe to the orders made therein inclusive of the one as to costs.
MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.: The Appellant has appealed against the assumption of Jurisdiction by the Lagos State High Court in spite of its preliminary objection that the claim at the trial, being one qua Bank and Bank fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court more so that no customer/Banker relationship existed. That jurisdiction could only be assumed by the Lagos State High Court where, ab initio, it had jurisdiction to try the principal subject matter in dispute. The 1st Respondent thinks otherwise. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents agree with the stance of the Appellant.
I have read the statement of claim and in particular paragraphs 26 (a), 27, 29, 33 and 36 of the first Respondent but do not at all see them as disclosing a claim for a simple contract between the 1st Respondent and the Appellant herein as sought to be made out by the 1st Respondent. If anything, it was an equitable claim ex-virtue the doctrine of tracing. Be that as it may, whatever principle of law that was perceived as giving a cause of action does not perse, form the basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of law, as jurisdiction is either conferred by the constitution or statute. No court has jurisdiction that is uncontrolled and undefined, as to do so will create a situation of riotous legal adjudication to the detriment of certainty in the administration of Justice. To ensure the certainty of the respective jurisdiction of the Federal and State high Courts, our constitution has clearly and unequivocally set out at section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as follows:
“251 (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters –
(d) Connected with or pertaining to banking, banks other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures;
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and the bank;”
A literal interpretation and application of this unambiguous constitutional provision, supra, locates the claim of the Appellant herein within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as it was a case between two banks relating to banking and having no trace of customer cum banker relationship between the Appellant and 1st Respondent herein. The application of the “proviso” provision as to the Banker/Customer relationship to create a concurrent jurisdiction in favour of the State High Court is a far cry, gleaning from the statement of claim before the trial court in respect of the subject on appeal, herein.
In any case, the equitable doctrine of tracing sought to be relied upon by the 1st Respondent and conceded to by the trial court does not vest or confer on a court of law that has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit, such jurisdiction which otherwise it does not possess. The doctrine is, in my respectful view, only a principle that may be invoked by a court competently seised of jurisdiction in an appropriate circumstance. The doctrine of tracing is therefore not a jurisdiction conferring principle of law.
FAR FROM IT.
Were that so, every court will exercise an all purpose jurisdiction so long as the equitable principle of tracing is disclosed or asserted by a claimant. The Appellant took no money from the 1st Respondent, thus the argument of the learned counsel for the 1st Respondent which appeared to have influenced the trial High Court Judge in thinking that it was a case of money had and received had no basis. There was no privities of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent on any simple contract upon which the Lagos State High Court could adjudicate. Even upon this non disclosure of any cause of action, the trial High Court of Lagos State was bereft of any jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the first instance.
It has long been settled that Judges ought not encroach or enlarge their jurisdiction because by so doing, the courts will be usurping the jurisdiction of the legislature and thus needlessly hungry for jurisdiction. Although nothing shall be intended to be out of jurisdiction of a superior court, but that which specifically appears to be so, a court cannot give itself jurisdiction by misconstruing a statute as done by the trial court in the subject in hand.
It is for the aforesaid that I agree with the lucidly comprehensive reasoning and conclusion in the lead Judgment just delivered by my Lord John Inyang Okoro J.C.A. that this appeal has merit and should be allowed.
I accordingly, join my lord without any hesitation in setting aside me Ruling of the Lagos State High Court, delivered in the suit leading to this appeal and able by the order as to costs as made in the said lead Judgment.
Appearances
Fred Onuobia, Esq. with A, G. Anafi, EsqFor Appellant
AND
1. Nick Omeye, Esq.
2. Ubong-Abasi Inyang, Esq.For Respondent
