CASE TITLE: EFCC v. B.T. MOTORS & TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD & ORS (2024) LPELR-61759(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 14TH MARCH, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: MUSLIM SULE HASSAN, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in matters involving agencies of the Federal Government.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the decision of the Kaduna State High Court sitting in Kaduna.
The case of the Respondents against the Appellant was that, on August 2, 2019, the men of the Appellant came to the 1st respondent’s Kaduna office without due notice, disrupted the business activities of the day, made a series of searches and invited him to the Kaduna zonal office for questioning. Upon getting to the Kaduna office of the Appellant, he was asked what business the 1st respondent is into, and he informed the Appellant that, the business of the 1st respondent is as enshrined in the memorandum of association, and his statement was taken and he was asked to return on August 29, 2019 at the Sokoto office. The chairman of the 1st Respondent too received a letter asking him to report at the Sokoto Office of the Appellant with several documents, including customs duties on all vehicles imported by the company and evidence of tax payment.
While he reported at the Sokoto Office, he was interrogated, released on bail and asked to come back on September 5, 2019. The case of the respondents is that they know that the Appellant has nothing to do with customs duties or the issuance of tax clearance, and if the Appellant is not stopped by the trial Court, the investigation would cause untold hardship to the Respondents and their businesses.
On the part of the Appellant, her case was that, armed with an intelligence report during the investigation of an alleged case of corruption, embezzlement, stealing of public funds and money laundering against the former governor of Zamfara State, Abdulaziz Abubakar Yari and others, the commission discovered that the 1st plaintiff, suspected to be owned by the 2nd Plaintiff, received a huge sum of money from the Zamfara State Government.
The trial Court granted all the reliefs sought by the respondents on their originating summons and directed the de-freezing of the 1st respondent’s account domiciled with Zenith Bank with Account No. 101289551 which was under investigation. The Appellant being aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Court had appealed against it to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on the sole issue thus:
Whether the lower Court was right when assuming jurisdiction to entertain the respondents’ originating summons when the reliefs touches on the interpretation of powers of an Agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria (Economic and Financial Crimes Commission).
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed.
RATIOS:
● JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain matters of interpretation of laws governing powers/activities of an agency of the Federal Government
● COURT – JURISDICTION – Importance of jurisdiction and effect of proceedings conducted where Court lacks jurisdiction
● COURT – JURISDICTION – Conditions precedent to exercise of jurisdiction and whether they must co-exist; effect of failure
● JURISDICTION – SUBSTANTIVE/TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – Difference between substantive and territorial jurisdiction
● JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – The position of the law on the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court on matters affecting the Federal Government or any of its Agencies; effect where a State High Court gives a decision on a case which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
