CASE TITLE: NIGERIAN AGRICULTURAL CREDIT & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD v. IWUOHA LPELR-81718 (SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 20TH JUNE, 2025
JUSTICES: IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.S.C.
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.S.C.
JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, J.S.C.
MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, J.S.C.
PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
FACTS:
The appeal borders on Recovery of Unpaid Rent.
The appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Judicial Division, delivered on February 25th, 2010.
The facts of the case are that the respondent herein was the landlord of a Block of Flats situate at No. 114/116 Uwalaka Street, Umuahia, Abia State. The appellant was a tenant in two of the said flats. In February, 2004, the appellant surprisingly without the knowledge of the respondent vacated the premises without notice to the landlord and his solicitor or caretaker. Upon inspection of the premises, the respondent discovered that the premises was degraded and subsequently carried out extensive repairs on the property.
At the end of the repairs/renovation, the respondent demanded the refund of the cost of repairs and other unpaid rents. The respondent/plaintiff claimed against the appellant/defendant via a Writ of Summons filed at the High Court of Rivers State (trial Court), the sum of N766,200, made up as follows:
i. N734,700, being the actual cost of repairs/renovating the three-bedroom flats the defendant/appellant occupied at No. 114/116 Uwalaka Street Umuahia, Abia State.
ii. N14,400 being part of the Plaintiff/respondent’s 2004 rent which the defendant/appellant wrongly deducted as Withholding Tax.
iii. N12,000 being February, 2004 rent as the defendant/appellant gave up possession of the two flats sometimes in February, 2004 the month they actually vacated the flat.
iv. Interest at 25% per annum on the N761,200 from 1/4/2004 until judgment and 10% thereafter until judgment debt is liquidated.
In the course of the trial, the appellant herein as the defendant filed a Motion on Notice challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court of Rivers State (trial Court) to hear the suit. The motion was heard by Boma G. Diepiri, J., and in a ruling delivered on the 15th day of May, 2006, the trial Judge granted the motion and declined jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The suit was accordingly struck out for lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, Port-Harcourt Judicial Division, wherein the Court, after hearing the appeal, delivered its judgment in which it resolved all the issues in favour of the respondent, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court and subsequently remitted the suit back to the Hon. Chief Judge of Rivers State for re-assignment to another Judge of that Court for expeditious hearing and determination with an award of N30,000 in favour of the respondent.
The appellant, being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, has appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
In the determination of the appeal, the Court adopted the Appellant’s issues for determination thus:
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the High Court of Rivers State sitting in Port Harcourt has jurisdiction to entertain this suit which subject matter is in respect of an immovable property (i.e. building) transacted in Umuahia, Abia State, with the said immovable property lying, being and situate in a foreign jurisdiction at No. 114/116 Uwalaka Street, Umuahia, Abia State and in which the defendant resides or has its registered office at Yakubu Gowon Way, Kaduna, Kaduna State and a principal place of business also at Umuahia, Abia State.
2. Whether by Order 10 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Rivers State or any other rule of the High Court of Rivers State, the High Court of Rivers State has jurisdiction to adjudicate over a suit where the subject matter is on interest relating to injuries to land/building and/or immovable property lying, being and situate at No. 114/116 Uwalaka Street, Umuahia, Abia State.
3. Whether Rivers State is the place of residence of the appellant as to cloth the High Court of Rivers State the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to a subject matter which is interest in land (immovable property) lying, being and situate at No. 114/116 Uwalaka Street, Umuahia, Abia State.
4. Whether an objection based on territorial or geographical jurisdiction of a Court is a mere irregularity which must be taken as a preliminary point before taking any step in a Suit.
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
It is the position of learned counsel for the appellant that the lower Court wrongly upheld the judgment. Counsel reproduced the content of Order 10 Rule 3 and 4 of the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules and submitted that the aforesaid rule is not applicable in this suit since what is in issue is not the Judicial Division of the High Court of Rivers State that has jurisdiction to entertain this suit rather, the wider issue of territorial or geographical jurisdiction of the High Court of two distinct and independent states to wit: Rivers State where the suit was instituted and Abia State where the property as well as the transaction took place. He stated that the residence of a corporation or company is the place of its central management and control. He referred the Court to the cases of: Kraus Thompson Org. Ltd v. University of Calabar (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 209) 1148 at 1168 Paras C-A; United Construction Ltd v. Bullock (1960) Ac 351; Union Corporations v. I.R.C. (1952) 1 All E.R- 646; Watkins v. Scottish Imperial Insurance Co. (1889) 23. He submitted that the defendant/appellant cannot be said to reside at Rivers State as to cloth the Rivers State High Court the jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit. He placed reliance on Kraus Thompson Org. Ltd v. University of Calabar (supra) and United Construction Ltd v. Bullock (supra). He posited that the lower Court was wrong to assume that the defendant/appellant is residing in Port Harcourt as to cloth the trial Court with the jurisdiction to hear the suit. He urged the Court to hold that River State is not the place of residence of the appellant and that Rivers State High Court sitting in Port Harcourt has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit relating to a subject matter which is interest in land (immovable property) lying and situate at No. 114/115 Uwalaka Street, Umuahia, Abia State.
Reacting to these issues, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the lower Court was unimpeachably right to hold that the Rivers State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s action. He noted that the respondent’s claim before the trial Court is a mere contract of landlord and tenant as same has nothing to do with the substantive interest in the land or property of the respondent situate at No. 114/116 Uwalaka Street, Umuahia. He argued that the respondent, having repaired or renovated his premises which the appellant suddenly vacated, merely instituted the action to recover his cost of renovation and related claims from Zonal and Branches Offices of the appellant in Port Harcourt. He argued that if the appellant’s worry is the high cost of renovation, that it has to wait for the respondent to prove his case and not to waylay the vehicle of justice by throwing all kinds of hurdles on its path in the name of objection to the Court’s jurisdiction. He submitted that the trial Court will have jurisdiction to entertain this suit once this Court comes to the conclusion that from the pleadings of the respondent that his action was founded on landlord and tenant simpliciter. He urged the Court to discountenance appellant’s submission on paragraphs 4.8 to 4.26 of the Appellant’s Brief of Argument.
Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that, the instant case, being an action for recovery of debt, which the cost of renovation had crystallized into, it is Order 10 Rules 3 and 4 that should govern the transaction and not Order 10 Rules 1 of the Rivers State (Civil Procedure) Rules 1987. He relied on the cases of: R.C.C. Nig. Ltd v. R.P.C Ltd (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 265) 1020; Okafor v. Ezenwa (2002) FWLR (Pt. 121) 1837; Agbanelo v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2000) FWLR (Pt. 14) 2197 and First Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Abraham (2009) FWLR (Pt. 461) 863 @ 886 A – C. Learned counsel argued that since title to demised premises at Umuahia was not in dispute as the pleading reveal, that the respondent is within his elements to institute his action at Port Harcourt where the appellant does business or resides. He relied on the cases of: Ibator v. Barakuro (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 371) 1669 @ 1684 – 1685, F- F; First Bank Nig. Plc v. Abraham (supra).
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed.
RATIO:
JURISDICTION- TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: Court with the appropriate territorial jurisdiction over a matter of recovery of unpaid rent
“The claim of the respondent as shown on the Writ is not related to title to land but clearly, recovery of outstanding debt of rent of a property. In the case of A.G. Adamawa State & Ors v. A.G. Federation (2014) LPELR -23221 (SC). This Court per Muhammad, JSC, held that: “In financial terms, any amount of money which is still owed after some payment has been made is what is called a balance. It remains a debt on the neck of the debtor. Limiting it to financial dealings, “debt” as held in the case of State v. Ducey 25 Ohio at page 2d 60, 266, represents a sum of money due by certain and express agreement. It is a specified sum of money owing to one person from another, including not only obligation of debtor to pay, but right of creditor to recover and enforce payment.” This decision clearly shows that what is being claimed in the instant case is nothing but a debt. An unpaid rent is a liability which can be reclaimed through a legal action such as this. Since it is not the landed property itself that is being claimed or disputed, matters of civil debt as it is in this case can be heard by the Court sitting in a place where the respondent or defendant resides within the territory of Nigeria. The lower Court in her judgment said at page 133 of the record thus: “l hold that the suit of the appellant was founded on landlord and tenant relationship not just a land matter simpliciter, involving title, trespass injunction or similar claims. While pure land matters must be decided by Court of situs, other suits pertaining to land, as in the case at hand can be litigated where the defendant resides or carries on business, pursuant to Order 10 Rules 3 and 4 of the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1987.” This position taken by the lower Court is prime and it is the correct position of the law in this matter.” Per ADAH, J.S.C.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
