UBA STOCKBROKERS LTD & ANOR v. UGWU
(2021)LCN/15714(CA)
In the Court of Appeal
(LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, February 18, 2021
CA/L/510/2016
Before Our Lordships:
Ignatius Igwe Agube Justice of the Court of Appeal
Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Court of Appeal
Amina Audi Wambai Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. UBA STOCKBROKERS LIMITED 2. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC APPELANT(S)
And
MICHAEL OKENNA UGWU RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF JURISDICTION
Now, jurisdiction is the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. It is the power of the 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 defines the power of Courts to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions and declare judgment. It is the legal right by which Judges exercise their authority. It is trite that jurisdiction is a hard matter of law that can only be determined in the light of the enabling statute. A Court of law cannot add to or subtract from the provisions of a statute. As a matter of law, a Court must blindly follow and apply the jurisdictional limits and limitations as contained or provided in a statute. In this and other situations, the statute is the master and all that a Court of law can do is to interpret the provisions of a statute to obtain or achieve the clear intentions of the lawmaker. A Court cannot do more than this – Anibi Vs Shotimehin (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt 282) 461, Elelu-Habeeb Vs Attorney General, Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt 1318) 423, Madumere Vs Okwara (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt 1368) 303, Opara Vs Amadi (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt 1369) 512. PER ABIRU, J.C.A.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is donated by the Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The opening part of the section reads:
“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 cases and matters”
The provision then proceeded to list eighteen specific areas in paragraphs (a) to (r) where exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal High Court and, it concluded in paragraph (s), and “such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly”. What this provision does is that it made the Federal High Court a Court of enumerated jurisdiction, and not one of general jurisdiction, and as such for the Federal High Court to have jurisdiction over a matter, the subject matter of action must fit into one of the enumerated areas of its jurisdiction – Anao Vs Sun Publishing Ltd (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt 1341) 399, Merill Guaranty Savings & Loans Ltd Vs WorldGate Building Society Ltd (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt 1336) 581, Ahmed Vs Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt 1377) 274. This point was succinctly made by Nweze, JCA (as he then was) in Oladipo Vs Nigerian Customs Service Board (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt 1156) 563 at page 585 thus:
“… Before we return to this question, we must first return to the implication of the drafting technique in Section 251 (supra). The point must be noted that the draftsman of that section painstakingly itemized the subject matters that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. In all, that section vested exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in eighteen major items…. The implication of this technique is that the said Court (Federal High Court) is actually a Court of enumerated jurisdiction, that is, a Court whose jurisdiction is not only delimited by statute but whose jurisdiction is delineated in relation only to the subject matter enumerated therein.
It would, therefore, amount to wrecking havoc on the express letters and intendment of the said Section 251 to construe it as granting the said Court a carte blanche to deal with every conceivable matter (that is, beyond those expressly enumerated ….
The effect of the circumscription of the jurisdiction of the Court to those eighteen major items is that whenever the question of jurisdiction of the Court is canvassed, attention ought to be focused on the subject matter of the suit. If the subject matter of the suit cannot be pitch forked into any of those eighteen major items, then that Court is not the proper forum for the ventilation of the action …”PER ABIRU, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE PLANTIFFS CLAIM AS ENDORSED ON THE WRIT OF SUMMONS THAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
The Courts have held that it is the case of the plaintiff as endorsed on the writ of summons and elaborated in the statement of claim or any other originating process that determines the jurisdiction of the Court – Elelu-Habeeb Vs Attorney General, Federation supra, Merill Guaranty Savings & Loans Ltd Vs WorldGate Building Society Ltd supra, Uwazurike Vs Nwachukwu (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt 1342) 503, Ahmed Vs Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt 1377) 274. And that the Court does not look at the faces, designations or duties of the parties in a suit to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction – Dagazau Vs Bokir International Company Ltd (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt 1267) 261. Thus, where the cause of action of a plaintiff does not fit into one of the enumerated areas of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as stated in Section 251 (1) of the Constitution, the fact that one of the parties to the action is the Federal Government or an agency of the Federal Government is irrelevant and it cannot give the Federal High Court jurisdiction over the subject matter – Onuorah Vs Kaduna Refining & Petrochemical Co. Ltd (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt 921) 393, Adeogun Vs Fashogbon (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt 1115) 149, Adetayo Vs Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt 1215) 169, Dingyadi Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt 1255) 347, Salim Vs Congress for Progressive Change (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt 1351) 501, Ahmed Vs Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt 1377) 274. PER ABIRU, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER DISPUTES BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMER AND HIS BANK
It has been settled beyond per adventure by the Supreme Court that a dispute between an individual customer and his bank is one of the items over which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution and that, by reason of the proviso to that provision, the jurisdiction is not exclusive, it is shared with the State High Court. In other words, the Federal High Court and the State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in matters arising from disputes between individual customers and their banks – Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Vs Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (1999) 2 SCNJ 57, Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation Vs Okem Enterprises Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt 880) 107, Integrated Timber & Plywood Producers Ltd Vs Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt 995) 483, United Bank for Africa Plc Vs BTL Industries Ltd (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt 1013) 61, Merill Guaranty Savings & Loans Ltd Vs WorldGate Building Society Ltd (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt 1336) 581, EcoBank Nigeria Ltd Vs Anchorage Leisures Ltd (2018) LPELR 45125(SC). PER ABIRU, J.C.A.
DEFINITION OF “DETINUE”
Detinue is a common-law action to recover personal property wrongfully taken or withheld by another. The essence of detinue is that the defendant holds on to property belonging to the plaintiff and fails to deliver the property to the plaintiff when a demand is made. The cause of action in detinue is the refusal of the defendant to return the goods to the plaintiff after the plaintiff must have made a demand for them – Kosile Vs Folarin (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 107) 1, Labode Vs Otubu (2001) LPELR-1731 (SC), Enterprise Bank Ltd Vs Aroso (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt 1394) 256 at 298.
The reliefs available to a claimant in a claim in detinue are (i) the value of the chattel as assessed and also damages for its detention, or (ii) the return of the chattel or recovery of its value as assessed and also damages for its retention, or (iii) the return of the chattel and damages for its detention – J. E. Oshivire Ltd Vs Tripoli Motors (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt 503) 1, Julius Berger Ltd Vs Omogui (2001) 6 SCNJ, 214, Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing Co Ltd Vs Africa Continental Bank Ltd (2004) LPELR 1982(SC), Nacenn Nigeria Ltd Vs Bewac Automotive Producers Ltd (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt 1257) 193. The reliefs sought by the Respondent are also those suited for a case in detinue. PER ABIRU, J.C.A.
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A. (Delivering The Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos delivered in Suit FHC/L/CS/1410/2009 on the 2nd of February, 2016 by Honorable Justice Saliu Saidu. The Respondent was the claimant in the lower Court and his claims were for:
i. A declaration that the Respondent has satisfied his obligations under the share plus loan agreement dated 20th of June, 2007 between him and the second Appellant and is entitled to the release of his First Bank Plc Share Certificate by the first and second Appellants.
ii. An order of the Honorable Court directing the Appellants to release forthwith the Respondent’s First Bank Plc Share Certificate representing 51,000 shares which the Respondent bought through the first Appellant and used as a collateral for the share plus loan from the second Appellant.
iii. An order of the Honorable Court directing the Appellants to release to the Appellant 23,375 additional units of First Bank Plc shares representing the units of shares due to the Respondent from First Bank Plc bonus share exercise of one share for every four shares and one for every six shares held by a shareholder by virtue of the 51,000 shares held by the Respondent and all subsequent shares that may be due to the Respondent unit judgment.
iv. General damages in the sum of N20 Million.
v. N1 Million being cost of the action.
The case of the Respondent on the pleadings was that the Appellants had a SharePlus investment scheme whereby a customer could invest in the purchase of shares and stocks by providing 40% of the share cost and the second Appellant would give a loan to cover 60% balance and the shares so purchased would be managed by the first Appellant. It was his case that subscribed for 300,000 units of shares of First Bank Plc at N33.00 per share, totaling N9.9 Million, in a public offer through the first Appellant under the SharePlus Investment Scheme and that he provided 40% of the cost price and applied for a loan of N5.94 Million from the second Appellant, representing 60% of the cost price. It was its case that the second Appellant approved the loan for a twelve month period at an interest of 17% per annum and it was agreed that the shares to be purchased would be used as security for the loan and they would be placed in the custody of the second Appellant and be managed by the first Appellant until to loan was repaid.
It was the case of the Respondent that at the close of the First Bank Plc public offer, he was informed by the first Appellant that it only succeeded in buying 51,000 shares worth N1,683, 000.00 out of the 300,000 shares applied for and that he demanded for the used portion of N9.9 Million slated for the purchase of the 300,000 shares but was advised by the first Appellant to invest the amount in other bank stocks. It was case that following the advice, he applied to the second Appellant for renewal of the SharePlus loan for another year and the request was granted and the first Appellant informed him that it utilized the funds for the purchase of shares of Access Bank Plc and Diamond Bank Plc and had opened a Central Security Clearing System (CSCS) account in his name with the shares. It was its case that it liquidated all the outstanding sums in his loan account with the second Appellant on the 28th of January, 2009 and he thereafter requested for the release of his First Bank Plc Share Certificate from the first Appellant and that second Appellant, by a letter, confirmed his repayment of the loan sum to the first Appellant and requested the first Appellant to release his Share Certificate.
It was the case of the Respondent that the Appellants have failed to release his First Bank Plc Share Certificate despite repeated and consisted demands, and after been made for fill Indemnity Forms and to deposed to an affidavit of non-receipt of the share certificate. It was his case that the failure of the Appellants to release his Share Certificate deprived him of the usual benefits and profits that accrued on the shares such as the bonus share of one share for every four shares held by a shareholder declared by First Bank Plc in 2008 as well as the bonus share of one share for every six shares held by a shareholder declared by First Bank Plc in 2009 and this would have amounted to 12,750 shares and 10,625 shares respectively.
The records of appeal show that upon being served with the Court processes, the second Appellant caused a motion on notice dated the 16th of April, 2010 to be filed and wherein it prayed the lower Court to dismiss the suit for disclosing no reasonable cause of action against it and to decline entertaining the suit as the lower Court was without jurisdiction. The lower Court took the motion on the merits and it dismissed same in a Ruling delivered on the 12th of July, 2010. The records of appeal show that the Appellants filed a joint further statement of defence dated the 3rd of April, 2013 and the further statement of defence referred to an earlier joint statement of defence dated 15th of February, 2010. This Court has scoured through the records of appeal and cannot find any such joint statement of defence dated the 15th of February, 2010.
The case of the Appellants on the further statement of defence was that sequel to the filing of the suit, their further enquiries from First Bank of Nigeria Plc showed that the CSCS account of the Respondent had been credited with 74,375 units First Bank Plc shares as at 9th of August, 2011 and this represented the shares purchased on behalf of the Respondent and bonus shares issued thereon. It was their case that this fact was brought to the attention of the Respondent by a letter dated the 19th of August, 2011 and that the present norm in the capital market is that it the CSCS Account that validates the shares held by a person and no longer share certificates. It was their case that the cause of action of the Respondent was predicated on a simple contract for the purchase of shares and this was outside the jurisdiction of the lower Court.
The matter proceeded to trial and in the course of which the Respondent called one witness and tendered several exhibits in proof of his case and the Appellants too called one witness and tendered exhibits in proof of their defence. At the conclusion of trial and after the rendering of final addresses by Counsel to the parties, the lower Court entered judgment wherein it found that it had jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Respondent and it granted the first three prayers sought by the Respondent and awarded him general damages in the sum of N2 Million and costs of the action in the sum of N500,000.00.
The Appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment and they caused their Counsel to file a notice of appeal containing four grounds of appeal and dated the 12th of February, 2016. In arguing the appeal before this Court, Counsel to the Appellants filed a brief of arguments dated the 25th of August, 2016 on the 26th of August, 2016 and Counsel to the Respondent filed a brief of arguments dated the 7th of May, 2018 on the same date. Both briefs of arguments were deemed properly filed and served by this Court on the 8th of December, 2020. At the hearing of the appeal, Counsel to the parties relied on and adopted the arguments contained in their respective briefs of arguments as their submissions on the appeal.
Counsel to the Appellants distilled two issues for determination in the appeal and these were:
i. Whether in considering Sections 251(1)(a-s) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Section 7 of the Federal High Court Act Cap 124 LFRN and the decisions in Farinre Vs Coker (2003) 7 WRN 23 and Standard Trust Bank Ltd Vs Olusola (2008) 4 WRN 82, the learned trial Judge was right to assume jurisdiction over a simple contract of shares transaction.
ii. Whether the learned trial Judge, if the answer is in the negative, failed to evaluate the evidence adduced before him and whether such omission did not occasion miscarriage of justice.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”></br<>
Counsel to the Respondent agreed that there are two issues for determination in the appeal, but he formulated them thus:
i. Whether having regard to Section 251 of the Constitution and the Federal High Court Act, the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as formulated by the Respondent.
ii. Whether the decision of the learned trial Judge granting judgment to the Respondent is justified in law.
This Court agrees with Counsel to the parties that there are two issues for determination in this appeal, but considers it necessary to reformulated them as follows:
i. Whether the lower Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Respondent.
ii. In event of issue (i) being answered in the affirmative, whether, on the state of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the lower Court was correct in entering judgment for and granting the claims of the Respondent.
This appeal will be determined on the two issues for determination as reformulated by this Court and the two issues for determination will be considered seriatim.
Issue One
Whether the lower Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Respondent?
In arguing the issue for determination, Counsel to the Appellants stated that the lower Court, the Federal High Court, derives its jurisdiction from the provisions of the Constitution and of other statutes enacted by the National Assembly and that to ascertain whether the lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Respondent, recourse must be had to the writ of summons and statement of claim and he referred to the cases of Tukur Vs Government of Gongola State (1989) 9 SC 1, Obiuweubi Vs CBN (2011) 2-3 SC (Pt 1) 46 and Otoakhia Vs Aero Contractor (Nig) Ltd (2014) 50 WRN 167. Counsel stated that the Federal High Court is a Court of delimited and delineated jurisdiction and that for it to have jurisdiction in a civil matter, the cause of action must arise for the eighteen items listed under Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or under Section 7 of the Federal High Court Act and he referred to the case of Oladipo Vs Nigeria Customs Service Board (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt 1156) 563. Counsel stated that a thorough combing of the facts contained in the amended statement of claim, particularly paragraphs 15 and 17 thereof, and the reliefs sought therein shows that the case of the Respondent was on tort of detinue and conversion and that this is not one of the listed items in either Section 252 (1) of Constitution or Section 7 of the Federal High Court Act. Counsel stated that, additionally, it is a requirement for the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court that one of the parties be the Federal Government of Nigeria or one of its agencies and that where neither party is the Federal Government of Nigeria or one of its agencies, it is the State High Court that possesses jurisdiction and he referred to the cases of NEPA Vs Edegbero (2002) 12 SC (Pt II) 119, Alamieyeseigha Vs Iginowari (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt 1034) 524 and Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Vs Lagos State Government (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt 1188) 570. Counsel stated that it is the State High Court that possesses jurisdiction to hear a case of tort of detinue and he referred to the cases of Seven-Up Bottling Co Ltd Vs Abiola & Sons (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt 730) 469 and Trade Bank Plc Vs Benilux Nig Ltd (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt 825) 416.
Counsel stated that assuming that the Federal High Court does have jurisdiction in respect of banking matters by virtue of the provision in Section 251(d) of the Constitution, the proviso thereto expressly forbade the jurisdiction from extending to “any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transaction between the individual and the Bank” and he referred to the cases of Bi-zee Bee Hotels Vs Allied Bank of Nigeria Ltd (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt 465) 176, UBN Plc Vs Integrated Timber & Plywood Producers Ltd (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt 680) 99 and Paice (Press & Books) Ltd Vs CBN (2001) 3 NWLR (Pt 700) 347. Counsel stated that it is the State High Court that possesses jurisdiction matters of dispute between an individual customer and his Bank, and not the Federal High Court and he referred to the cases of Jammal Steel Structures Ltd Vs ACB Ltd (1973) 11 SC (Reprint) 56 and De Liuch Vs Societe Bancaire (Nig) Ltd (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt 842) 1. Counsel stated that the lower Court misapplied the decision of the Supreme Court in NDIC Vs Okem Enterprises and that the decision in the case did not depart from the position of the Court in Jammal Steel Structures Ltd Vs ACB Ltd supra Counsel stated that, moreover, a look through the statement of claim shows that there no dispute relating to a banking transaction between the Respondent and the second Appellant and that the dispute centered on the refusal of the first Appellant to release the share certificate of the Respondent. Counsel stated that this, at best, is a case of breach of simple contract of share purchase agreement, which does not require the interpretation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, and that the first Appellant is not a Bank and the second Appellant is a nominal party that was joined just to confer jurisdiction on the lower Court. Counsel stated that the joinder of the second Appellant cannot change the position of jurisdiction in the matter because the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain matters of simple contract between parties and that such matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State High Court and he referred to the cases of Farinre Vs Coker (2003) 7 WRN 23, UBN Plc Vs Integrated Timber & Plywood Producers Ltd (2000) 12 NWLR (Pt 680) 99, STB Plc Vs Olusola (2008) 4 WRN 82, Sun Insurance Nig Plc Vs Umez Engr. Construction Co Ltd (2015) 42 WRN 45.
Counsel urged the Court to find that the lower Court did not possess the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims of the Respondent and to resolve the first issue for determination in favour of the Appellants.
In his response, Counsel to the Respondent conceded that the Federal High Court is a Court of delimited and delineated jurisdiction and that for it to have jurisdiction in a civil matter, the cause of action must arise for the eighteen items listed under Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria or under Section 7 of the Federal High Court Act. Counsel referred to the case of FGN Vs Oshimhole (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt 860) 305 in asserting that it is the claim before the Court, particularly the reliefs sought, that determines the jurisdiction of the Court. Counsel stated that the cause of action of the Respondent, as made out on the statement of claim, comes within the item listed under Section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution and Section 7 (1)(d) of the Federal High Court Act which talk about banking, banks, other financial institutions, etc. Counsel stated that the proviso to these provisions which say that they “shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of a transaction between the individual and the bank” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the State High Court and the Federal High Court to hear matter dealing with disputes between an individual customer and his bank and he referred to the case of NDIC Vs Okem (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt 880) 107.
Counsel reproduced the reliefs sought by the Respondent before the lower Court and stated that the relationship between the Respondent and the Appellants was a banker/customer relationship, as was obvious from the pleadings and evidence led at trial, and that the cause of action of the Respondent was not based on the tort of detinue and that the lower Court thus had jurisdiction to entertain same. Counsel reproduced the finding of the lower Court on the issue of jurisdiction and stated that all the cases relied upon by Counsel to the Respondent to assert that, only the State High Court has jurisdiction to hear a matter involving dispute between an individual customer and his banker are not good law. Counsel conceded that the lower Court does not have jurisdiction to hear matters predicated on simple contracts but stated that the present case is not founded on simple contract and that all the cases relied on by Counsel to the Appellants are irrelevant and are cited out of context.
Counsel urged the Court to find and hold that the lower Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims of the Respondent and to resolve the first issue for determination against the Appellants.
In the deliberating on the issue of its jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Respondent, the lower Court stated in the judgment thus:
“It is not in doubt that the relationship of the party (sic) arose from the fact that the Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant which entitled him to the facilities granted him upon which MOU were drawn by the parties. The issue now is where the Plaintiff has been unable to pay back the facilities granted him, would the Defendants have resulted to the tort of detinue to recover the facilities and apply the facts of this case to that of a simple contract. The facilities granted the Plaintiff were secured by the share certificate withheld by the Defendants as security for the loan facilities granted the Plaintiff. The issue of jurisdiction of this Court has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of NDIC Vs Okem Ent. Ltd … and to argue at this point that this Court has no jurisdiction on customer/banker relationship is a distraction. I hold that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this case.”
Now, jurisdiction is the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. It is the power of the 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 defines the power of Courts to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions and declare judgment. It is the legal right by which Judges exercise their authority. It is trite that jurisdiction is a hard matter of law that can only be determined in the light of the enabling statute. A Court of law cannot add to or subtract from the provisions of a statute. As a matter of law, a Court must blindly follow and apply the jurisdictional limits and limitations as contained or provided in a statute. In this and other situations, the statute is the master and all that a Court of law can do is to interpret the provisions of a statute to obtain or achieve the clear intentions of the lawmaker. A Court cannot do more than this – Anibi Vs Shotimehin (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt 282) 461, Elelu-Habeeb Vs Attorney General, Federation (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt 1318) 423, Madumere Vs Okwara (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt 1368) 303, Opara Vs Amadi (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt 1369) 512.
The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is donated by the Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The opening part of the section reads:
“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 cases and matters”
The provision then proceeded to list eighteen specific areas in paragraphs (a) to (r) where exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal High Court and, it concluded in paragraph (s), and “such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly”. What this provision does is that it made the Federal High Court a Court of enumerated jurisdiction, and not one of general jurisdiction, and as such for the Federal High Court to have jurisdiction over a matter, the subject matter of action must fit into one of the enumerated areas of its jurisdiction – Anao Vs Sun Publishing Ltd (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt 1341) 399, Merill Guaranty Savings & Loans Ltd Vs WorldGate Building Society Ltd (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt 1336) 581, Ahmed Vs Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt 1377) 274. This point was succinctly made by Nweze, JCA (as he then was) in Oladipo Vs Nigerian Customs Service Board (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt 1156) 563 at page 585 thus:
“… Before we return to this question, we must first return to the implication of the drafting technique in Section 251 (supra). The point must be noted that the draftsman of that section painstakingly itemized the subject matters that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. In all, that section vested exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in eighteen major items…. The implication of this technique is that the said Court (Federal High Court) is actually a Court of enumerated jurisdiction, that is, a Court whose jurisdiction is not only delimited by statute but whose jurisdiction is delineated in relation only to the subject matter enumerated therein.
It would, therefore, amount to wrecking havoc on the express letters and intendment of the said Section 251 to construe it as granting the said Court a carte blanche to deal with every conceivable matter (that is, beyond those expressly enumerated ….
The effect of the circumscription of the jurisdiction of the Court to those eighteen major items is that whenever the question of jurisdiction of the Court is canvassed, attention ought to be focused on the subject matter of the suit. If the subject matter of the suit cannot be pitch forked into any of those eighteen major items, then that Court is not the proper forum for the ventilation of the action …”
The Courts have held that it is the case of the plaintiff as endorsed on the writ of summons and elaborated in the statement of claim or any other originating process that determines the jurisdiction of the Court – Elelu-Habeeb Vs Attorney General, Federation supra, Merill Guaranty Savings & Loans Ltd Vs WorldGate Building Society Ltd supra, Uwazurike Vs Nwachukwu (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt 1342) 503, Ahmed Vs Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt 1377) 274. And that the Court does not look at the faces, designations or duties of the parties in a suit to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction – Dagazau Vs Bokir International Company Ltd (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt 1267) 261. Thus, where the cause of action of a plaintiff does not fit into one of the enumerated areas of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as stated in Section 251 (1) of the Constitution, the fact that one of the parties to the action is the Federal Government or an agency of the Federal Government is irrelevant and it cannot give the Federal High Court jurisdiction over the subject matter – Onuorah Vs Kaduna Refining & Petrochemical Co. Ltd (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt 921) 393, Adeogun Vs Fashogbon (2008) 17 NWLR (Pt 1115) 149, Adetayo Vs Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt 1215) 169, Dingyadi Vs Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt 1255) 347, Salim Vs Congress for Progressive Change (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt 1351) 501, Ahmed Vs Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt 1377) 274.
It has been settled beyond per adventure by the Supreme Court that a dispute between an individual customer and his bank is one of the items over which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction by virtue of the provision of Section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution and that, by reason of the proviso to that provision, the jurisdiction is not exclusive, it is shared with the State High Court. In other words, the Federal High Court and the State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in matters arising from disputes between individual customers and their banks – Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria Vs Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (1999) 2 SCNJ 57, Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation Vs Okem Enterprises Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt 880) 107, Integrated Timber & Plywood Producers Ltd Vs Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt 995) 483, United Bank for Africa Plc Vs BTL Industries Ltd (2006) 19 NWLR (Pt 1013) 61, Merill Guaranty Savings & Loans Ltd Vs WorldGate Building Society Ltd (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt 1336) 581, EcoBank Nigeria Ltd Vs Anchorage Leisures Ltd (2018) LPELR 45125(SC).
The question that arises is – what was the nature of the dispute submitted by the Respondent for adjudication before the lower Court? The case of the Respondent has been summarized in the earlier part of this judgment. The highlights of his case were that (i) the Respondent borrowed money from the second Appellant for the purpose of purchasing bank shares and it was agreed that the first Appellant would purchase the bank shares on behalf of the Respondent and would hold unto the shares as collateral for the loan until the Respondent repay the loan to the second Appellant; (ii) the second Appellant disbursed the loan and the first Appellant used the money to purchase the bank shares, including the shares of First Bank of Nigeria Plc, and the first Appellant held unto the First Bank of Nigeria Plc shares pending the liquidation of the loan; (iii) the Respondent repaid the entire loan plus interest to the second Appellant and it notified the first Appellant accordingly and requested for the release and return of the First Bank of Nigeria Plc shares to him; (iv) the second Appellant also addressed a letter to the first Appellant notifying it and confirming the fact that the Respondent has repaid the loan and directing that the First Bank of Nigeria Plc shares be released to the Respondent; and (v) the first Appellant failed, refused and/or neglected to release the First Bank of Nigeria shares to the Respondent despite repeated demands thereafter and after the Respondent filled all necessary forms and supplied all requested documents.
These are the facts upon which the Respondent predicated his claims before the lower Court. It is trite law that in determining the case made by a party, a Court must read all the paragraphs of the pleadings of the party together to get a flowing story of the party and not a few paragraphs in isolation and it is the totality of the pleadings that states the case of the party – Okochi Vs Animkwoi (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt 851) 1, Mobil Oil Plc Vs Drexel Energy and Natural Resources Ltd (2004) 1 NWLR (Pt 853) 142, Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Vs Zaria (2014) LPELR 22362(CA). Reading the facts as a whole, it is obvious that there was no dispute between the Respondent and his bank, the second Appellant, in respect of the loan transaction; both of them were ad idem that the loan had been repaid and was a closed matter. The dispute submitted to the lower Court for adjudication centered on the refusal of the first Appellant to release to the Respondent the First Bank of Nigeria Plc shares purchased for and belonging to the Respondent, upon the liquidation of the loan, despite repeated demands. The claims of the Respondent were for the release of the First Bank of Nigeria Plc shares and damages for the detention of the shares.
Looking at the facts presented by the Respondent, it is without doubt that the cause of action exhibited on the pleadings of the Respondent before the lower Court was in detinue; tort of detinue. Detinue is a common-law action to recover personal property wrongfully taken or withheld by another. The essence of detinue is that the defendant holds on to property belonging to the plaintiff and fails to deliver the property to the plaintiff when a demand is made. The cause of action in detinue is the refusal of the defendant to return the goods to the plaintiff after the plaintiff must have made a demand for them – Kosile Vs Folarin (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 107) 1, Labode Vs Otubu (2001) LPELR-1731 (SC), Enterprise Bank Ltd Vs Aroso (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt 1394) 256 at 298.
The reliefs available to a claimant in a claim in detinue are (i) the value of the chattel as assessed and also damages for its detention, or (ii) the return of the chattel or recovery of its value as assessed and also damages for its retention, or (iii) the return of the chattel and damages for its detention – J. E. Oshivire Ltd Vs Tripoli Motors (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt 503) 1, Julius Berger Ltd Vs Omogui (2001) 6 SCNJ, 214, Neka B.B.B. Manufacturing Co Ltd Vs Africa Continental Bank Ltd (2004) LPELR 1982(SC), Nacenn Nigeria Ltd Vs Bewac Automotive Producers Ltd (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt 1257) 193. The reliefs sought by the Respondent are also those suited for a case in detinue.
The facts presented by the Respondent on the pleadings and the reliefs sought made it clear that the second Appellant was not a needed or necessary party to the case presented for adjudication before the lower Court. Counsel to the Respondent only added the second Appellant as a party to disguise the essence of the case of the Respondent as a dispute between a customer and his bank so as to bring it within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. While this disguise appeared to have totally befuddled and confused the lower Court, as shown in its deliberations on the point as reproduced above, it does not have any effect on this Court. Counsel to the Respondent underestimated the sharp sense of perception and wisdom of this Court to sift the wheat from the chaff.
It is settled law that a claim in the tort of detinue, which is specie of trespass to goods, does not come within the items listed inSection 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution and over which the Federal High Court can exercise jurisdiction. It is a claim within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State High Court – 7Up Bottling Co Ltd Vs Abiola & Sons Ltd (2001) 13 NWLR (Pt 730) 469, Trade Bank Plc Vs Benilux (Nig) Ltd (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt 825) 416, Five Star Industry Ltd Vs Bank of Industry Ltd (2017) LPELR 44029(CA), Rahman Brothers Ltd Vs Nigeria Ports Authority (2017) LPELR 46415(SC), Ikpekpe Vs Warri Refinery & Petrochemical Company Ltd (2018) LPELR 44471(SC), Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria Vs Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd (2019) LPELR 47324(CA). The lower Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the Respondent. The first issue for determination is resolved in favour of the Appellants.
Issue Two
In event of issue (i) being answered in the affirmative, whether, on the state of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, the lower Court was correct in entering judgment for and granting the claims of the Respondent.
The resolution of the first issue for determination in the negative handicaps this Court from proceeding to consider the second issue for determination. The law, by reason of the provision of Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act, Cap 134, Laws of Federation 2004, is that the proper order to make after coming to the conclusion that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a case, is one transferring the case to the appropriate State High Court with jurisdiction – Mokelu Vs Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing (1976) 1 NMLR 329, Aluminium Manufacturing Co Ltd Vs Nigerian Ports Authority (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt 51) 475, Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd Vs Leventis Trading Co. Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt 244) 675, Ladoja Vs INEC (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt 1047) 97, Believers Fisheries Dredging Ltd Vs UTB Trustees Ltd (2010) LPELR 3864(CA), Tessi Jane International Ltd Vs Financial Datanet House Ltd(2014) LPELR 22419(CA), Akanji Vs Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urban Development (2016) LPELR 41631(CA). The exercise of this power of transfer of case by the Federal High Court to the State High Court is not discretionary; it is obligatory – Allison Vs Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd (2011) LPELR 4062(CA), Cross River State Forestry Commission Vs Anwan (2012) LPELR 14416(CA), Ufondu Vs William (2014) LPELR 23025(CA), NDIC Vs Jackson (2014) LPELR 23378(CA), Nsa Vs Hon. Attorney General of the Federation (2018) LPELR 45278(CA). In Mokelu Vs Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing supra, the Supreme Court, in interpreting the provision of Section 22(2) of the Federal Revenue Court Decree 1973 which is in pari materia with the present provision, made the point thus: “We have carefully considered the wording of Section 22(2) of the Federal Revenue Decree 1973 and we are convinced that for a true and correct meaning to be given to the word ‘may’, it must be construed as imposing an obligatory duty. Absurdity or repugnancy would follow from holding that a discretion was given; because where a Judge of the Federal Revenue Court holds that he has no jurisdiction and the refuses to order a transfer, he can neither strike out the case nor dispose of it in any other manner. In our view, the learned trial Judge having rightly held that he had no jurisdiction was clearly in error when he ordered that the case be struck out as this is contrary to the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Federal Revenue Court Decree. The proper order in the circumstances was to transfer the case to the appropriate High Court in pursuance of Section 22(2).”
Where this Court finds, on appeal, that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a matter, it can, and should, invoke the provision of Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act and make the necessary order of transfer of the case to the appropriate State High Court – Nigeria Ports Authority Vs Eyamba (2014) LPELR 22726(CA), Sita Vs Maevies Ltd (2014) LPELR 24159(CA), Governor of Imo State Vs Iwunze (2018) LPELR 44005(CA), University of Nigeria, Nsukka Vs Gratia Consults Ltd (2019) LPELR 47170(CA). This is because the finding of the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower Court will predominate in the final orders of this Court in the appeal and it will make the matter susceptible to being re-heard or retried in the appropriate State High Court. In that wise, the Courts have opined that it is unwise for a Court sitting as an intermediate Court to pronounce on the merit of the issues argued if the same issues could still arise at the fresh hearing of the case – Sanusi Vs Ameyogun (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt 237) 527 at 550-551, Tiga Green Farms Agricultural (Nig) Ltd Vs Mitsui O. S. K. Lines Ltd (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt 953) 70 at 86-87 and Five Star Industry Ltd Vs Bank of Industry Ltd (2017) LPELR 44029(CA). This Court will thus ignore the second issue formulated for determination in the appeal and discountenance all the arguments of Counsel thereon. In conclusion, this Court finds merit in the appeal it is hereby allowed. The judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos delivered in Suit FHC/L/CS/1410/2009 on the 2nd of February, 2016 by Honorable Justice Saliu Saidu is set aside as a judgment given without the requisite jurisdiction. It is ordered that this suit be transferred to the High Court of Lagos State for the hearing and determination of the claims of the Respondent. The High Court of Lagos State shall indulge the case with an accelerated hearing. The parties shall bear their respect costs of the appeal. These shall be the orders of the Court.
IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in advance, the well-reasoned and researched Judgment of my learned brother, HON. JUSTICE HABEEB ADEWALE ABIRU, JCA and am in complete agreement with his reasoning and conclusion on the issues of jurisdiction canvassed by the parties.
The Supreme Court and indeed this Court had variously held that jurisdiction is the life blood to the adjudication of any action before a Court of law without which, like an animal, that has been drained of its blood and will cease to live and any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into it will be an exercise in futility. See Utih vs. Onoyivwe (1991) All NWLR (Pt.166) 166;Mobil Producing (Nig.) Unltd. vs. L.A.S.E.P.A. (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt.798) 1. Owing to the fundamental and threshold nature of jurisdiction, it can be raised as an issue at any time and even on Appeal before the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal for the first time.
In Madukolu & Ors. vs. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587 per Bairamian F.J; where the Supreme Court set out the circumstances under which a Court like the one below can be held to be seised of the jurisdiction to entertain a cause of action or matter as follows:
“Before discussing those portions of the record, I shall make some observations on jurisdiction and the competence of a Court. Put briefly, a Court is competent when:-
“(1) it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and
(2) the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
(3) the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.
If the Court is competent, the proceedings are not a nullity but they may be attacked on the ground of irregularity in the conduct of the trial; the argument will be that the was so grave as affect the fairness of the trial and the soundness of the adjudication. It may turn out that the party complaining was to blame, or had in the irregularity: or that it was trivial: in which case the Appeal Court may not think fit to set aside the judgment. A defect in procedure is not always fatal”.
Jurisdiction is generally a creature of statute, Constitution or otherwise and that since the jurisdiction to entertain and determine a case either at the Trial Court or Appellate Court are donated by statute, failure to comply with any statutory or constitutional provisions or the required prescription that the relevant laws or other by which a suit or claim or an appeal may be brought, may render such a Claim or Appeal incompetent and deprive such a Court of its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
In the same vein, jurisdiction cannot be conferred or donated to the Court or by the parties or by their consent, for jurisdiction cannot be circumvented as it is always conferred by either statute or the Constitution. See Osi vs. Accord Party (2017) 3 NWLR (Pt.1553) 387 at 403 paras. D-F per Sanusi, JSC citing Dangana & Anor. vs. Usman 4 Ors. (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt.1349) 50; NURTW & Anor. vs. R.T.E.A.N (2012) 1 SC (Pt.1) 119; A-G. Lagos vs. A-G. Federation (2014) 9 NWLR (Pt.1412) 217 at 254.
Courts are creatures of statutes and it is the statute that creates a particular Court that confers jurisdiction on it, and jurisdiction can only be extended by the legislature. However, where the jurisdiction of a Court is a matter of procedural law, failure to comply with certain aspect of the procedure is a mere irregularity, which does not render the action incompetent.
Accordingly, this Appeal has merit and is hereby allowed. I abide by the order as to costs.
AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the judgment of my learned brother, Habeeb Adewale Olumuwiya Abiru, JCA. He has dealt with and resolved the issue in this appeal. The law is trite that the jurisdiction vested on the Federal High Court by the various paragraphs of Subsection 1 of Section 251 of the Constitution does not include a cause or matter involving the tort of detinue.
The lower Court having rightly conceded that it had no jurisdiction ought to have invoked the provisions of Section 22(2) of its Rules to transfer the case to the State High Court. Having failed to do so, this Court hereby allows the appeal and order the transfer of the case to the Lagos State High Court for accentuated hearing.
Appearances:
Ibrahim Abikan For Appellant(s)
B. C. Akunya For Respondent(s)
