Whether The Court of Appeal has the Jurisdiction to Transfer a Case to the Appropriate Court When the Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction AB Initio

CASE TITLE: USMAN v. NIGERIAN UNITY LINE PLC (2025) LPELR-80608(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2025
PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

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

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, delivered on the 7th day of May 2013 in Appeal Number CA/K/261/2007.

In brief, the Appellant in this appeal approached the Federal High Court, Kaduna Judicial Division (the “Trial Court”) vide a motion ex parte dated the 23rd day of January 2006, seeking to sue the Respondent under the undefended list, praying the Court for the following reliefs:

1. “An order of Court granting leave to the applicant to file this suit under the undefended list.

2. An order marking the writ of Summons accordingly.

3. And such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.”

The motion was supported by an 11-paragraph affidavit, deposed to by the appellant. On the 2nd day of February 2006, the trial Court granted leave to the appellant to file the suit under the undefended list. In the suit, the Appellant claimed, the sum of $2,663,720 or its Naira equivalent of 172,833.60, being the Appellant’s legal fees in respect of the legal services rendered to the Respondent and the estacode allowance, and 10% interest thereon from the date of the Judgment until the entire sum is liquidated. After granting leave to the Appellant, the Respondent duly served all processes in line with the order of the trial Court.

The matter came up for hearing several times before the trial Court and the Respondent failed to file notice of intention to defend pursuant to Order 24 Rule 3(1) of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules. The learned trial Judge became satisfied that the Respondent had no intention to defend the action; judgment was therefore accordingly entered by the Court as per the claim of the Appellant against the Respondent.

The judgment delivered by the trial Court did not go down well with the Respondent, who then initiated an appeal at the Court of Appeal.

The appeal was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal held that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and therefore declared the whole proceedings a nullity. In effect the decision of the trial Court was set aside.

The decision of the Court of Appeal miffed the Appellant who consequently appealed against same in the instant appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal on this sole issue, thus:

Whether the Court of Appeal correct in setting aside the decision of the trial Court, which granted the application of the Appellant to commence the action under the undefended list and proceeded to enter judgment in favour of the Appellant?

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.

RATIOS:         

• COURT- JURISDICTION: Effect of trial/proceeding conducted in the absence of jurisdiction of Court
• COURT- POWER OF COURT: Instances where the Court will not invoke its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act
• COURT- POWER OF COURT: Instance where the Supreme Court will not invoke its powers under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act
• JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT: Whether the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court pertains to cases of simple contracts
• JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURT: Whether the State High Court has jurisdiction over the recovery of legal fees
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- TRANSFER OF CASES: Instance(s) where the power of Court to transfer a case will not be exercised

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