Whether The Federal High Court and The State High Courts Have Concurrent Jurisdictions in Respect of Banker/Customer Relationships

CASE TITLE: FBN PLC & ANOR v. BEN-SEGBA TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62998(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 19TH JULY, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: JURISDICTION OF COURT
LEAD JUDGMENT: STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JSC.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the Jurisdiction of the Federal/State High Court.

FACTS:

This is an appeal from the Benin Division of the Court of Appeal where the Court allowed the appeal in part and held that the trial State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit except for some of the reliefs.

The respondents (as plaintiffs) took out a Writ of Summons against the appellants (as defendants). Two Motions supported by identical affidavits, one Ex parte and the other Motion on Notice were filed alongside the Writ of Summons. And on the next day, the trial Court heard and granted the Motion Ex parte and ordered an interim injunction by which it restrained the appellants from (1) “taking further or any step for the recovering of the disputed loan/interest and (2) restraining 2nd Defendant from taking over, managing, receiving, disposing/selling, or removing anything in respect of plaintiffs’ properties” pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice. The trial Court then adjourned the Motion on Notice with the same set of prayers. It was at this stage that the appellants (as Defendants) were served with the Writ of Summons together with the enrolled order of interim injunction. The appellants entered a conditional appearance and reacted by filing a Motion on Notice supported by an affidavit. Appellants therein prayed the trial Court for an order for “leave and extension of time within which to apply for and an order discharging the order of interim injunction and/or striking out of the respondents’ suit” on the ground that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and/or adjudicate on the matter for the Plaintiffs’ are in receivership.

The claim of the respondents as endorsed on the Writ of Summons are as follows:

1. A Declaration that the loan transaction/contract between 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant was frustrated by natural courses for which reason 1st Defendant need not charge interest on same.

2. A Declaration that the undated and unsigned tripartite legal mortgage purportedly made between 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant is oppressive, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.

3. A Declaration that 1st Defendant willfully and totally frustrated the contract between itself and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd., i.e., contract No. W13196.

4. A Declaration that the purported letter of 1st Defendant dated 31st March 2008 allegedly appointed 2nd Defendant as the receiver/manager of 1st plaintiff is null, void and of no effect whatsoever.

5. The sum of N10,000,000,000.00 (Ten Billion Naira) damages against the 1st Defendant for breach of contract when sometime in April, 2008 1st Defendant without any regard to its letter dated 20th February, 2007 and without notice to Plaintiffs, unlawfully appointed 2nd Defendant as receiver/manager to take over 1st Plaintiff.

6. The sum of N9,000,000.00 (Nine Million Naira) being money collected by the 2nd Defendant in the office of 1st Plaintiff on the 16th of June, 2008, when it unlawfully broke into the premises of 1st Plaintiff with armed men.

7. The sum of N1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira) being damages for trespass against the Defendants.

8. An order mandatory injunction compelling the 1st Defendant to produce the statement of account of 1st Plaintiff in account No. 2050001833 with the 1st Defendant.

9. An order of mandatory injunction compelling the 1st Defendant furnish 1st Plaintiff with all the particulars and interest charge on the loan and the total amount debited from the 1st Plaintiff’s said account is the subject matter of this suit.

10. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from doing anything or taking any step or further step for the recovery of the disputed loan/interest charge thereof, the subject matter of this suit.

11. And an order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant, his agents, servants, privies or whomsoever from taking over, managing, receiving, disposing/selling, doing anything or taking any step or further step in respect of the Plaintiffs properties by virtue of the purported letter of 31st March, 2008.

12. And for any other relief[s] this Honourable Court may deem suitable or fit to make in the circumstances.

The trial Court took arguments on the objection and dismissed it in a ruling.

The appellants, being dissatisfied, appealed the ruling. The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, partly held that only claims Nos. 4, 6, and 11 can be heard and determined by the Federal High Court while the other claims are comfortably within the jurisdiction of the trial State High Court.

Still aggrieved by this part of the judgment of the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issue formulated by the respondent viz:

“Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the trial State High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s claim except reliefs 4, 6 and 11.”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- ANCILLARY/MAIN CLAIM(S): Whether a Court can determine ancillary claims where it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the main claims
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Whether a Judge can expand his jurisdiction beyond the limit imposed by law
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Whether it is the court with jurisdiction over the principal claim(s) that can adjudicate over the entire case
• COURT- JURISDICTION: Whether a Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate over ancillary claims where it has no jurisdiction over the main claims
• JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE STATE/FEDERAL HIGH COURT: Whether the Federal High Court and the State High Courts have concurrent jurisdictions in respect of banker/customer relationships
• JURISDICTION- JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT: Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court with respect to the appointment of a receiver/manager

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