(2018) LPELR-45308(CA)

Transcription

1 EPE RESORTS & SPA LTD v. UBA PLC CITATION: TIJJANI ABUBAKAR In the Court of Appeal In the Lagos Judicial Division Holden at Lagos ON THURSDAY, 5TH JULY, 2018 Suit No: CA/L/799/2014 BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL Before Their Lordships: Justice, Court of Appeal Justice, Court of Appeal ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO Justice, Court of Appeal EPE RESORTS AND SPA LIMITED UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC Between And - Appellant(s) RATIO DECIDENDI - Respondent(s)

2 1. 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 "A careful consideration of this preliminary objection reveals that the contention of the parties border on the different and opposing meaning read into the provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) by the parties with respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear and determine the instant suit. While the Appellant is contending that Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) completely erodes the jurisdiction of the Lower Court to entertain this suit the Respondent's contention is that the Federal High Court shares concurrent jurisdiction with State High Court to entertain a dispute between a Bank and its customer, as in the instant case, and the Plaintiff can elect either the Federal or State High Court to institute the suit. It is pertinent to reproduce the provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) the section provides as follows: 251(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil cases and matters - (q)... (b)... (c)... (d) connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and bank. The provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the proviso thereto as reproduced above is very clear, simple and unambiguous. The Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in certain matters which includes the matters contained under Section 251(1) (d); the Constitution went further to include a proviso to Section 251(1) (d) to the effect that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and bank; no other contrary meaning can be ascribed to this clear and unambiguous provision of Section 251(1) (d). The provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) were subjected to judicial interpretation in seemingly endless judicial decisions both of this Court and the Supreme Court. In NDIC Vs. OKEM ENT. LTD. [2004] 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107; (2004) LPELR-1999 (SC) Pg.54-55, Paras. F - B, the Supreme Court per UWAIFO JSC held as follows: Plainly, the proviso in question in Section 251(1) (d), to put it in simple analysis, says that the Federal High Court will have exclusive jurisdiction in banking matters but when what is involved is individual customer and his bank transaction, the Federal High Court shall not have exclusive jurisdiction. Understandably, that was to recognize the jurisdiction of the State High Courts had been exercising in such matters which Section 272(1) of the Constitution impliedly preserves. The High Court of a State can only exercise jurisdiction in any aspect of such specified matters to the extent that the proviso in Section 251(1)(d) permits." See: also INLAND BANK (NIG.) PLC V. RUHANTI (NIG) ENTERPRISES LTD. & ORS (2010) LPELR-4324 (CA) Pg.26-27, Paras. E - E; ECOBANK NIGERIA LIMITED Vs. ANCHORAGE LEISURES LIMITED & ORS (2016) LPELR (CA) Pg , Paras. E - B; and EQUITORIAL TRUST BANK LIMITED Vs. AGADA (2015) LPELR (CA) Pg , Paras. C - B where this Court held that: "...by virtue of the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the Federal High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with State High Court to hear and determine any matter falling within the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the said 1999 Constitution as amended. Thus the Federal High Court, though it has no exclusive jurisdiction over the it has no exclusive jurisdiction over the matters as are covered by the said proviso, retains its concurrent jurisdiction with the State High Court over such matters as are covered by the said proviso." In the circumstances therefore, the provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) clearly confer jurisdiction on both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the States, the Plaintiff is therefore at liberty to institute his suit before any of the Courts. The Appellant raised heavy storm over the fact that the loan transaction is a simple contract and therefore does not fall within the ambience of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution (as amended). This argument is porous, unsustainable and grossly misconceived. The provisions of Section 251(1) (d) are very clear that any civil matter relating to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and bank shall fall within the jurisdiction of both the State and Federal High Courts. In my humble opinion therefore, this Preliminary objection is richly meritorious and therefore deserves to be and is hereby sustained, and the Appellants appeal is accordingly dismissed."per ABUBAKAR, J.C.A. (Pp , Paras. C-A) - read in context

3 2. 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 "It is common knowledge that the scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is enumerated under Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). As it relates to the instant case, it is the provision of Section 251(1) (d) that is applicable. In particular, the proviso to Section 251(1) (d) has since been construed that where a dispute relates to an individual customer and a bank, the Federal High Court and the State High Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction. See the case of EQUITORIAL TRUST BANK LTD v AGADA (2016) LPELR (CA) per OKORO, JCA where this Court relying on the case of NDIC v OKEM ENT. LTD & ANOR (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107 held as follows: "...The Jurisdiction of State High Courts in bank-customer relationship, apart from the constitutional provision has been pronounced upon by the Apex Court. In NDIC v OKEM ENT. LTD & ANOR per NWAIFO, JSC, it was held as follows: proper view of the provision in Section 251 (1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is that the main provision having used the Language of exclusive jurisdiction, the provision then relaxes that exclusiveness given to the Federal High Court therein in a situation in which the issue is a dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual and the bank. In that regard, a State High Court will also have to continue to exercise Jurisdiction and this it does concurrently with the Federal High Court..." See also the cases of GABISAL NIG. LTD & ANOR v. NDIC (2008) LPELR (CA); F.M.B.N v NDIC [1999] 2 NWLR (Pt. 591) 333. It is Section 251(1) (d) that confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in matters connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including where the action is between one bank and another, by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from any fiscal measures including banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes. The proviso to Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution clearly state that the provision that the Federal High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in matters connected with banking does not apply where the dispute is between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and the bank. Without engaging in an unnecessary voyage of discovery, it is undisputed that the subject matter of the instant suits revolves around the recovery of debt by the Respondent Bank from the appellant arising out of a credit facility. The Respondent is claiming against the Appellant a liquidated sum of $3,258, plus interest on the said sum of the rate of 10% per annum from March 2007 till total liquidation of the sum being unpaid and outstanding indebtedness arising from credit facilities granted to the Appellant by the Plaintiff despite several demands. Pursuant to the proviso above, the Federal High Court does not possess exclusive jurisdiction on the subject matter of the instant case; but to make it plain, it still has jurisdiction over it. Any contention to the contrary especially to the effect that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction is in my view, misconceived, not well founded and cannot be accepted by this Court as the proper construction of the Constitution. As my learned brother aptly stated, a plaintiff in an action relating to banker-customer relationship has the liberty to institute such action at the Federal High Court or the State High Court. In this instance, and in line with decision of the Apex Court in NDIC v. Okem (supra), the jurisdiction of the State High Court is preserved where the matter relates to Ordinary Banker Customer relationship."per OBASEKI- ADEJUMO, J.C.A. (Pp , Paras. E-F) - read in context 3. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Whether a preliminary objection should be considered and determined first before dealing with the merits of an appeal "The need to consider and determine the issue raised in the Preliminary Objection before proceeding to consider the aforementioned issues for determination by the parties is premised on the fact that it is important and of course the law to deal with any Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent (or Defendant) to the hearing and determination of the case before the Court. This is founded on the firmly rooted principle of law that where in a suit or an appeal, a preliminary objection is raised, the Court is laden with the duty to hear and determine the preliminary objection before the main suit or appeal is heard, and if on the other hand the determination of the preliminary objection decides the suit or appeal completely, then the Court has no further business to determine the suit or appeal as the case may be. See ALLANAH Vs. KPOLOKWU (2016) LPELR (SC) Pg , Paras. D - A and MUSA & ANOR Vs. IBRAHIM (2017) LPELR (CA) Pg. 5, Paras. A - D. I will proceed to first consider the argument canvassed by the Respondent in the preliminary objection and then determine same one way or the other."per ABUBAKAR, J.C.A. (Pp. 3-4, Paras. E-D) - read in context

4 TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the Ruling of the Federal High Court, sitting in the Lagos Division, delivered by I. N. Auta CJ. on the 4th day of July, 2014 in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/131/14 which is contained at pages of the Records of Appeal wherein the Lower Court dismissed the Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Lower Court to hear and determine the instant suit filed by the Appellant. The said Notice of Preliminary Objection is contained at pages of the Records of Appeal and is premised on the ground that the subject matter of the suit did not fail within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court pursuant to Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim are contained at pages 1 5 of the Records of Appeal. Nettled by the decision of the Lower Court therefore, the Appellant filed Notice of Appeal on the 17th day of July, 2014 premised on two (2) grounds of appeal as contained at pages of the Records of Appeal. 1

5 The Appellant's Brief of Argument was settled by I.O. Muftau Esq., and was filed on the 14th day of April, The Appellant's counsel also filed a Reply Brief on the 8th day of December, The Respondent's Brief on the other hand was filed by Chukwudi Enebeli Esq., on the 17th day of June, 2015 but deemed as properly filed and served on the 24th day of November, The Respondent also filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the hearing of this appeal and proffered arguments in support of same in the Respondent's Brief. The 2 (two) issues nominated for determination by learned counsel for the Appellant are as follows: 1. Having regard to the nature and subject matter of the Suit before the Lower Court, which is based and founded on simple contract and banker/customer relationship, whether the Lower Court is not bereft of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit? (Ground 1.) 2. Whether the failure of the Lower Court to consider all issues/points raised by the Appellant in her Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent's Suit, before summarily dismissing the Appellant's Notice of 2

6 Preliminary Objection, did not amount to a breach of the Appellant's right to fair hearing? (Ground 2). The Respondent on the other hand crafted a sole issue for determination as follows: "Whether the Lower Court was right in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit before it?" SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL ON THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 17th June, 2015 seeking an order of this Court to strike out/dismiss this instant appeal on the ground that it is merely academic and a sheer waste of judicial time, among other grounds. Learned counsel for the Respondent incorporated arguments in support of the Preliminary Objection in the Respondent's Brief while the Appellant filed a response to the Respondent's Preliminary Objection in its Reply Brief. The need to consider and determine the issue raised in the Preliminary Objection before proceeding to consider the aforementioned issues for determination by the parties is premised on the fact that it is important and of course the law to deal with any Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent (or Defendant) to the hearing and 3

7 determination of the case before the Court. This is founded on the firmly rooted principle of law that where in a suit or an appeal, a preliminary objection is raised, the Court is laden with the duty to hear and determine the preliminary objection before the main suit or appeal is heard, and if on the other hand the determination of the preliminary objection decides the suit or appeal completely, then the Court has no further business to determine the suit or appeal as the case may be. See ALLANAH Vs. KPOLOKWU (2016) LPELR (SC) Pg , Paras. D - A and MUSA & ANOR Vs. IBRAHIM (2017) LPELR (CA) Pg. 5, Paras. A - D. I will proceed to first consider the argument canvassed by the Respondent in the preliminary objection and then determine same one way or the other. Learned counsel for the Respondent relied on NEKA LTD Vs. A.C.B. 1 SCNJ 213 to submit that this appeal is bad and bereft of merit. Counsel argued that the appeal borders on the interpretation of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) as it relates to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear and determine disputes 4

8 bordering on banker-customer relationship; and that this issue has long been settled in NDIC Vs. OKEM ENT. LTD. [2004] 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) Pg.104 and F.M.B.N. Vs. NDIC [1999] 2 NWLR (Pt. 591) Pg. 333 where the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that both the State High Court and the Federal High Court have concurrent jurisdiction with respect to actions culminating into disputes arising from banker-customer relationship. Learned counsel submitted that what the Appellant is urging this Court to do is to depart from the decisions of the Supreme Court and hold that the Federal High Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter bordering on banker-customer relationship. Learned counsel relied on DALHATU Vs. TURAKI [2003] 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) pg. 310 and N.A.B. LTD Vs. BARRI ENG. (NIG.) LTD. [1995] 8 NWLR (Pt. 413) Pg. 257 to contend that the doctrine of stare decisis requires that all Lower Courts be bound by and follow the principles laid down in the decision of the Supreme Court even if it was reached per incuriam. Counsel submitted that the essence of stare decisis is to create a uniform binding precedent for the Courts and Counsel and to minimize 5

9 situations where there are conflicting decisions of the Court; and that refusal to follow the decisions of a superior Court will amount to impertinence and judicial rascality. Learned counsel urged this Court to strike out the instant suit for being unmeritorious and an absolute waste of judicial time in view of the position of the Supreme Court in NDIC Vs. OKEM ENT. LTD. (Supra) and F.M.B.N. Vs. NDIC (Supra). Learned counsel for the Respondent further contended that proceeding with this appeal will amount to an exercise in futility; and that the law does nothing in vain expressed as "lex nil frustro facit". Counsel relied on NIGERIA CUSTOMS SERVICE Vs. BAZUAYE [2005] 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) Pg. 303; BAMGBADE Vs. BALOGUN [1994] 1 NWLR (Pt. 323) Pg. 718 and FRANCHAL NIG LTD Vs. N.A.B. LTD [2000] 9 NWLR (Pt. 671) Pg. 1 to submit that the Appellant's counsel owes this Court a duty to ensure that the Court is not misled by the authorities they cite in support of their case, and to place the necessary authority before the Court to ensure that justice is achieved. Counsel submitted that the authorities cited by the Appellant were aimed at misleading this Court. 6

10 Learned counsel relied on WOMILOJU Vs. ANIBIRE [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) Pg. 545 at 557 to urge this Court to dismiss this appeal for lacking in merit. Learned counsel for the Appellant while submitting on the Preliminary objection argued that the Preliminary Objection is misconceived and based on wrong premise. Counsel referred to ELELU HABEEB Vs. A.G., FEDERATION [2012] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1318) Pg. 423 (SC) to submit that the jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the Plaintiff's claim as endorsed on the Writ of Summons; and that the main claim of the Respondent is simply for recovery of debt and that the Lower Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Learned counsel further submitted that the kernel of the Respondent's claim is for purported breach of a loan agreement between the Appellant and Respondent; and that a loan agreement is a simple contract between a Bank and its Customer. Learned counsel relied on NDIC Vs. O SILVAWAX INTERNATIONAL LTD & ANOR [2006] 7 NWLR (Pt. 980) pg.104 and BELIEVERS FISHERIES DREDGING & ANOR Vs. U.T.B. TRUSTEES LIMITED (2010) LPELR-3864 (CA) Pg.19, Paras. B - G to submit that this instant 7

11 case does not fall within the ambience of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and that only the State High Court has the jurisdiction to determine banker customer relationship. Counsel contended that Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) completely erodes the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain any suit bordering on simple contract between a Bank and its Customer, as in the suit between the Appellant and the Respondent. Learned counsel referred to ALLIED BANK NIG LTD Vs. AKUBUEZE [1997] 6 NWLR (Pt.509) Pg. 48, Paras. B - C; ONUORAH Vs. K.R.P.C LTD [2005] 5 NWLR (Pt. 921) Pg. 393; OMOSOWAN & 2 ORS Vs. CHIEDOZIE [1998] 9 NWLR (Pt. 566] Pg. 477 at 484 (CA); UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC Vs. ANUEBUNWA [2012] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1291) Pg. 560 and F.C.E OYO Vs. AKINYEMI [2008] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1109) Pg. 21 to submit that the nature of relationship between a bank and its customer is founded on simple contract and that the Federal High Court does not have jurisdiction in matters bordering on simple contract. Counsel argued that what this Court should be minded to 8

12 consider is not whether there was a banker-customer relationship but the nature of the claim between the parties to this appeal. Learned counsel relied on ASSOCIATED DISCOUNT HOUSE LIMITED Vs. ALMAGAMATED TRUSTEES LTD. [2006] 10 NWLR (Pt. 989] Pg. 635 to submit that the nature of the claim between the parties herein is for the recovery of the purported loan advanced to the Appellant and the interests thereon which is clearly outside the purview of the Federal High Court. Learned counsel for the Respondent further argued that the word "concurrent" was not used anywhere in the Constitution; and that the learned trial Judge's decision at page 126 of the Records of Appeal that the issue of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain disputes between customer and bank has long been settled by case law is an interpretation which does not flow from the Statute. Counsel relied ABUBAKAR Vs. NASAMU (No.1) [2012] 17 NWLR (Pt. 130) Pg. 407 at 443 to submit that where the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the proper and natural meaning as contemplated by the law must be ascribed to it. Learned counsel further referred to Order 14 Rule 1 and Order 9

13 15 Rule 1 (c) of the Rules of Professional Conduct to submit that a counsel's duty is to put all arguments in favour of his client before the Court which is what the learned Counsel for the Appellant did in the instant. Counsel urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Appellant and dismiss the Respondent's Preliminary Objection. RESOLUTION OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION A careful consideration of this preliminary objection reveals that the contention of the parties border on the different and opposing meaning read into the provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) by the parties with respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear and determine the instant suit. While the Appellant is contending that Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) completely erodes the jurisdiction of the Lower Court to entertain this suit the Respondent's contention is that the Federal High Court shares concurrent jurisdiction with State High Court to entertain a dispute between a Bank and its customer, as in the instant case, and the 10

14 Plaintiff can elect either the Federal or State High Court to institute the suit. It is pertinent to reproduce the provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) the section provides as follows: 251(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil cases and matters - (q)... (b)... (c)... (d) connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures; Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and bank. 11

15 The provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the proviso thereto as reproduced above is very clear, simple and unambiguous. The Constitution confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in certain matters which includes the matters contained under Section 251(1) (d); the Constitution went further to include a proviso to Section 251(1) (d) to the effect that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and bank; no other contrary meaning can be ascribed to this clear and unambiguous provision of Section 251(1) (d). The provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) were subjected to judicial interpretation in seemingly endless judicial decisions both of this Court and the Supreme Court. In NDIC Vs. OKEM ENT. LTD. [2004] 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107; (2004) LPELR-1999 (SC) Pg.54-55, Paras. F - B, the Supreme Court per UWAIFO JSC held as follows: 12

16 Plainly, the proviso in question in Section 251(1) (d), to put it in simple analysis, says that the Federal High Court will have exclusive jurisdiction in banking matters but when what is involved is individual customer and his bank transaction, the Federal High Court shall not have exclusive jurisdiction. Understandably, that was to recognize the jurisdiction of the State High Courts had been exercising in such matters which Section 272(1) of the Constitution impliedly preserves. The High Court of a State can only exercise jurisdiction in any aspect of such specified matters to the extent that the proviso in Section 251(1)(d) permits." See: also INLAND BANK (NIG.) PLC Vs. RUHANTI (NIG) ENTERPRISES LTD. & ORS (2010) LPELR-4324 (CA) Pg.26-27, Paras. E - E; ECOBANK NIGERIA LIMITED Vs. ANCHORAGE LEISURES LIMITED & ORS (2016) LPELR (CA) Pg , Paras. E - B; and EQUITORIAL TRUST BANK LIMITED Vs. AGADA (2015) LPELR (CA) Pg , Paras. C - B where this Court held that: " by virtue of the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, the Federal High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with State High Court to hear and determine any matter falling 13

17 within the proviso to paragraph (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 251 of the said 1999 Constitution as amended. Thus the Federal High Court, though it has no exclusive jurisdiction over the it has no exclusive jurisdiction over the matters as are covered by the said proviso, retains its concurrent jurisdiction with the State High Court over such matters as are covered by the said proviso." In the circumstances therefore, the provisions of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) clearly confer jurisdiction on both the Federal High Court and the High Court of the States, the Plaintiff is therefore at liberty to institute his suit before any of the Courts. The Appellant raised heavy storm over the fact that the loan transaction is a simple contract and therefore does not fall within the ambience of Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution (as amended). This argument is porous, unsustainable and grossly misconceived. The provisions of Section 251(1) (d) are very clear that any civil matter relating to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and 14

18 bank shall fall within the jurisdiction of both the State and Federal High Courts. In my humble opinion therefore, this Preliminary objection is richly meritorious and therefore deserves to be and is hereby sustained, and the Appellants appeal is accordingly dismissed. Cost of N500, is awarded to the Respondent against the Appellant. BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JCA, just delivered with which I agree and adopt as mine. I have nothing more to add. ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.: I have had the rare privilege of reading in draft the leading judgment just delivered by my learned brother, TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JCA and I agree with the reasoning contained therein and the conclusion arrived thereat. It is common knowledge that the scope and extent of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is enumerated under Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). As it relates to the instant case, it is the provision of Section 251(1) (d) 15

19 that is applicable. In particular, the proviso to Section 251(1) (d) has since been construed that where a dispute relates to an individual customer and a bank, the Federal High Court and the State High Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction. See the case of EQUITORIAL TRUST BANK LTD v AGADA (2016) LPELR (CA) per OKORO, JCA where this Court relying on the case of NDIC v OKEM ENT. LTD & ANOR (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107 held as follows:...the Jurisdiction of State High Courts in bankcustomer relationship, apart from the constitutional provision has been pronounced upon by the Apex Court. In NDIC v OKEM ENT. LTD & ANOR per NWAIFO, JSC, it was held as follows: proper view of the provision in Section 251 (1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is that the main provision having used the Language of exclusive jurisdiction, the provision then relaxes that exclusiveness given to the Federal High Court therein in a situation in which the issue is a dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual and the bank. In that regard, a State High Court will also have to continue to exercise 16

20 Jurisdiction and this it does concurrently with the Federal High Court..." See also the cases of GABISAL NIG. LTD & ANOR v. NDIC (2008) LPELR (CA); F.M.B.N v NDIC [1999] 2 NWLR (Pt. 591) 333. It is Section 251(1) (d) that confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in matters connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including where the action is between one bank and another, by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from any fiscal measures including banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes. The proviso to Section 251(1) (d) of the Constitution clearly state that the provision that the Federal High Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in matters connected with banking does not apply where the dispute is between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and the bank. Without engaging in an unnecessary voyage of discovery, it is undisputed that the subject matter of the instant suits revolves around the recovery of debt by the Respondent Bank from the appellant 17

21 arising out of a credit facility. The Respondent is claiming against the Appellant a liquidated sum of $3,258, plus interest on the said sum of the rate of 10% per annum from March 2007 till total liquidation of the sum being unpaid and outstanding indebtedness arising from credit facilities granted to the Appellant by the Plaintiff despite several demands. Pursuant to the proviso above, the Federal High Court does not possess exclusive jurisdiction on the subject matter of the instant case; but to make it plain, it still has jurisdiction over it. Any contention to the contrary especially to the effect that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction is in my view, misconceived, not well founded and cannot be accepted by this Court as the proper construction of the Constitution. As my learned brother aptly stated, a plaintiff in an action relating to banker-customer relationship has the liberty to institute such action at the Federal High Court or the State High Court. In this instance, and in line with decision of the Apex Court in NDIC v. Okem (supra), the jurisdiction of the State High Court is preserved where the matter relates to Ordinary Banker Customer relationship. 18

22 It is for the foregoing that I abide by the reasoning and conclusion contained in the leading judgment as well as the consequential order contained therein. 19

23 Appearances: I. O. Muftau with him, P. I. Ekeh For Appellant(s) Chukwudi Enebeli with him, Akinola Olayinka For Respondent(s)