Concurrent Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and State High Court as It Relates to Banker-Customer Relationship

CASE TITLE: IDI v. A-G. KANO STATE & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62158(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 26TH APRIL, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: MUHAMMED LAWAL SHUAIBU, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT: 

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

FACTS:

This appeal emanated from the judgment of the Federal High Court, sitting in Kano, delivered on April 17, 2013.

The Appellant as Applicant commenced a fundamental right enforcement application on September 22, 2011, wherein he prayed the trial Court for the following reliefs:

1. DECLARATION of this honorable Court that the detention of the Applicant for period of 21 years without trial is against the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights

2. DECLARATION of this Court that the detention of the Applicant at the instance of the Respondent for period of 21 years without trial and without reasonable suspicion of having committed any crime has violated the Applicant’s Fundamental Human Rights and is therefore entitled to damages.

​3. AN ORDER of this Court unconditionally discharging, releasing and setting the applicant free from incarceration and prison custody.

4. AN ORDER of this honorable Court awarding the sum of ₦13,680,000 as specific damages against the Respondents and in favor of the Applicant for loss of earning for period of 12 years from June 1999 to June, 2011.

5. AN ORDER of this Court awarding ₦20,000,000 as general and exemplary damages in favor of the Applicant against the Respondents.

6. AN ORDER of this Court compelling the Respondents to write a public apology to the Applicant in respect of this matter.

7. Any other order(s) that this honorable Courts may deem fit to make in the interest of justice.

In a joint counter-affidavit filed on November 24, 2021, the Respondents vehemently opposed the Applicant’s application.

In its judgment, the trial Court declined jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s case and thereby struck it out. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issue:

“Whether the lower Court was wrong when his Lordship declined jurisdiction and refused to grant the relief sought by the Appellant.”

DECISION/HELD:

On the whole, the appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Whether the enforcement of fundamental right must be the main claim in an application brought under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Importance of jurisdiction; effect where a Court lacks jurisdiction over a matter
• JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT: Nature of the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court under Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution
• JURISDICTION- CONCURRENT JURISDICTION: Concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal and State High Court to entertain matters relating to enforcement of fundamental rights
• JURISDICTION- CONCURRENT JURISDICTION: Concurrent jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and High Court as it relates to disputes arising from a transaction involving banker-customer relationship
• LEGISLATION- STATUTORY PROVISION: Position of the law where there are general and specific enactment on a particular subject matter

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol