UBA v. OLA-OLUWA AINA WIRE INDUSTRY (NIG)LTD & ANOR

CITATION: (2016) LPELR-40155(CA)

In the Court of AppealIn the Akure Judicial Division

Holden at Akure

ON FRIDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY, 2016Suit No: CA/AK/176M/2013

Before Their Lordships:

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE Justice, Court of AppealMOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA Justice, Court of AppealJAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI Justice, Court of Appeal

BetweenUNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC - Appellant(s)

And1. OLA-OLUWA AINA WIRE INDUSTRY (NIG.) LTD2. CHIEF (DR.) M. O. AINA - Respondent(s)

RATIO DECIDENDI

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

1 INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - SECTION 251 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NIGERIA 1999 (AS AMENDED): Interpretation ofSection 251 (1) of 1999 Constitution as to what determines the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in a matter"The provision of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is reproduced below:251. - (1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may beconferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of anyother Court in civil causes and matters.(a) relating to the revenue of the Government of the Federation in which the said Government or any organ thereof or a person suing orbeing sued on behalf of the said Government is a party;(b) connected with or pertaining to the taxation of companies and other bodies established or carrying on business in Nigeria and all otherpersons subject to federal taxation.(c) connected with or pertaining to customs and excise duties and export duties, including any claim by or against the Nigeria CustomsService or any member or officer thereof, arising from the performance of any duty imposed under any regulation relating to customs andexcise duties and export duties;(d) connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, anyaction by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchanger coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters ofcredit, 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 betweenthe individual customer and the bank;(e) arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act or any other enactment replacing that Act or regulating the operationof companies Incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act;(f) any federal enactment relating to copyright, patient, designs, trademarks and passing-off industrial designs and merchandise marksbusiness names, commercial and industrial monopolies, combines and trusts, standards of goods and commodities and industrial standards;(g) any admiralty jurisdiction, including shipping and navigation on the River Niger or River Benue and their effluents and on such otherInland waterway as may be designated by any enactment to be an international waterway, all Federal ports, (including the Constitution andpowers of the port, authorities for Federal ports) and carriage by sea;(h) diplomatic, consular and trade representation;(i) citizenship, naturalization and aliens deportation of persons who are not citizens of Nigeria, extradition, immigration into and emigrationfrom Nigeria, passports and visas;(i) bankruptcy and insolvency;(k) aviation and safety of aircraft;(l) arms, ammunition and explosives;(m) drugs and poisons;(n) mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil mining geological surveys and natural gas);(o) weights and measures;(p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies;(q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the FederalGovernment or any of its agencies;(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by theFederal Government or any of its agencies; and(s) such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not as may be conferred upon it by an Act ofthe National Assembly;Provided that nothing in the provisions of paragraphs (p), (q) and (r) of this subsection shall prevent a person from seeking redress againstthe Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on anyenactment, law or equity.The question whether the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 (1) is restricted to the status of the parties as in this caseor extends to the subject matter which for some time has been a bone of contention in the Superior Courts seems finally to have now beenput to rest by the Superior Court in the recent case of Wema Securities and Finance Plc V. Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation (2015)16 NWLR (Pt. 1484) 93. In that case, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the Court of Appeal on its view that the trial Court lackedthe jurisdiction to entertain the claim for failure to examine the subject matter or the claims before the Court which was within thejurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja even when the Respondent is an agency of the Federal Government.The implication of the above and as it affects the instant appeal is that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 (1) of the1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria cannot be merely construed to be limited to the status of the party before the Court.Therefore, it would not be right for a State High Court to decline jurisdiction only on account of the fact that one of the parties is the FederalGovernment or any of its agencies but must always take into account the subject matter or the claims before the Court to determinewhether indeed and in addition to the status of the parties, the claim is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.My noble Lord, the Hon. Justice C. C. Nweze, JSC who read the leading judgment in the case of Wema Securities and Finance Plc V. NigeriaAgricultural Insurance Corporation (Supra) captured the position forcefully but beautifully when he held at page 135 of the Law Report that:"For the avoidance of doubt, the prevailing jurisprudence on the actual question before this Court under issue two - and this is evidence inthe cases cited above - is that in considering the issue of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under Section 251 (1) (supra), both thestatus of the parties (that is, whether it is the Federal Government or any of its agencies) and the subject matter of the claim (that is,whether it relates to any of the enumerated items in the said section) have to be looked at, Obiuweubi V. CBN (supra) 20, C - F; Oloruntoba-Oju V. Abdul-Raheem and Ors (supra); NURTW and Anor V. RTEAN and Ors. (supra) 47, C - G; NNPC and Ors V. Orhiowasele and Ors (supra);PDP and Anor V. Sylva and Ors (supra) 52 - 53, G - E; Ocholi Enojo-James V. INEC and Ors (2015) LPELR 24494 (SC) 56 - 57; Ohakim V.Agbaso (supra) 172, 236 - 237, G - D, Kakih V. PDP & Ors (supra) 374, 414, F - G; Ahmed V. Ahmed and Ors (supra) 274, 335, C - H.It is hoped that Counsel would, henceforth stop hampering the smooth administration of justice and efficient management of cases, both atthe Federal High Court and State High Courts, by their irksome recourse to their time-worm objection to the jurisdiction of these Courtsbased on the interpretation of Section 251 (1) (supra) now rested by the above decisions of this Court."Earlier on in this judgment the erudite Justice of the Supreme Court held pungently at page 130 of the law report in relation to the casebefore the Court as follows:"As if it was minded to perpetuate the said 'frenzy of doctrinal debates' the lower Court, as already shown above took the view that the trialCourt had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter before it just because the second Defendant (the Respondent in this appeal) was an agencyof the Federal Government.In my humble view, while it, rightly found that the Respondent is an agency of the Federal Government FMBN V. Olloh (supra); Idoniboye-Odu V. NNPC (supra) its conclusion that the mere presence of that agency of the Federal Government robbed the trial Court of jurisdictionmust rankle all liberal constitutional jurisprudents and judicial exegetes...”Per OWOADE, J.C.A. (Pp. 12-19, Paras. C-A) - read in context

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

2 JURISDICTION - JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT: Purport of Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution as regards thejurisdiction of the Federal High Court"The Supreme Court per Pats-Acholonu JSC in the case of Societe Bancaire (Nigeria) Limited V. Margarida Salvado DE LLUCH (2012) 2 BFLR326 at 335 declared that Section 251 (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) connotes transactions on matters which are related tobanking or the operation of a bank. Specifically, that "the expression connected with or pertaining to imports the state of affair where thematter involves a transaction which is peculiar to the banking operation and can onlybe carried on by the bank or a financial institution. It equally connotes the operational duties of a bank in respect of or in relation to itsfunctions within the limits of its license."Per OWOADE, J.C.A. (Pp. 25-26, Paras. D-A) - read in context

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

MOJEED ADEKUNLE OWOADE, J.C.A. (Delivering theLeading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decisionof the Honourable Justice S. Oyejide Falola sitting at theHigh Court of Osun State, Osogbo delivered on 21st June2013.

The Respondents as Plaintiffs took out a Writ of Summonsdated 21st August 2007 against the Appellant asDefendant.

By paragraph 62 of the Respondents' ConsequentialAmended Statement of Claim of 22/7/2013. TheRespondents (Plaintiffs) claimed as follows:a. An order directing the Defendant to refundforthwith to the Plaintiff the sum of N594, 696,982.54representing excess and wrongful charge on thePlaintiffs account with the Defendant.b. An order directing the Defendant to pay to thePlaintiff the mandatory 100% penalty on the sumcertain of excess bank charges in (g) above arisingfrom the provision of the Monetary, Credit, ForeignTrade and Exchange Policy No. 37 of 02/2004 andsubsequent years in which the Defendant failed torefund to the Plaintiff within 14 days upon requisitenotice given.c. An order of perpetual injunction restraining theDefendants, either by themselves,

1

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

agents, servant, or privies from taking over, selling

alienating or interfering howsoever with the plaintiffs

business/factory at Km 9, Ikirun Road, Osogbo

covered by certificate of statutory right of occupancy

No. 27/27/2871 at the lands Registry formerly in

Ibadan, Oyo State but now in Osogbo, Osun State or

any other place.

d. One Billion Naira on the footing of aggravated and

exemplary damages for the defendant's reckless,

mindless, wrongful debating of the plaintiff's account

with the Defendant.

Also by paragraphs 66 - 67 of the Appellant's Further

Amended Statement of Defence/Counter Claim, dated

13/2/2012 at page 46 of the record of appeal, the Appellant

Counter Claimed as follows:

66. The Defendant repeats paragraphs 1 - 65 of the

Amended Statement of Defence.

67. Whereof the Defendant/counter claimant claims

against the plaintiff as follows:

(a) The sum of N115,797,275.27 being the principal

sum and accrued interest on the credit facility of N50

Million granted to the 1st Plaintiff by the Defendant

in August, 2006.

(b) Interest on the said sum at the rate of 21% per

annum from 1/9/06 until judgment is entered and

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

thereafter at the rate of 100% until final liquidation.

Meanwhile, on the 28th January 2013, the Appellant

brought a Motion on Notice praying the Court for "an

order joining the asset Management Corporation of

Nigeria (hereinafter called �AMCON��) as Counter

Claimant in this case..."

The grounds of the application are:

(a) The debt, the subject matter of the counter claim

has been assigned by the Defendant to AMCON.

(b) The decision and/or any older made in this case

will affect AMCON.

(c) AMCON is therefore a necessary party to this case.

On 21/6/2013, the Learned trial Judge delivered his Ruling

on the above application and held at pages 103 - 104 of the

record refusing the application, that:

"Therefore, the conclusion I reach is that though

AMCON is a necessary party to the counter claim of

the Defendant this could (sic) Court lacks jurisdiction

to join AMCON on the grounds that this Court lacks

requisite jurisdiction to administer justice on

AMCON. Being a necessary party is not enough, the

party sought to be joined is suffering from legal

disability and cannot appear before this Court. See

Awolowo v. Minister

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

Internal Affairs (1962) L.L.R 177. The two reliefs

claimed by the Defendant/Applicant in her counter

claim can easily be determined without AMCON being

joined as a party".

Dissatisfied with the above decision, the Appellant filed a

Notice of Appeal (containing four (4) grounds of appeal)

into this Court on 12/7/2013.

The relevant briefs of argument for the appeal are as

follows:

1. Appellants brief of argument dated and filed on

20/10/2014 - Settled by Peter Olomola.

2. Respondent�s brief of argument dated 1/12/2014

and filed on 2/12/2014 - Settled by Roy Bassey Ukoh

Esq.

3. Appellant's Reply brief dated 6/11/2015 and filed

on 9/11/2015- Settled by Peter Olomola.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants nominated two (2)

issues for determination. They are:

(a) Whether or not the Federal High Court has

exclusive jurisdiction over all matters where the

Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party

irrespective of the subject matter.

(b) Whether or not any provision in the AMCON Act

can override the clear and unambigious provisions of

the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of

Nigeria.

The Respondents

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

adopt the issues formulated for determination by the

Appellant. I have carefully gone through the records in this

appeal as well as the processes filed by the parties. I am

convinced that the following two issues would meet the

justice of the case.

1. Whether or not the Federal High Court has

exclusive jurisdiction over all matters where the

Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party

irrespective of the subject matter.

2, Whether the Learned trial Judge was not justified

to have refused the Defendant's/Appellant�s

application to join AMCON as a party to the suit.

On issue one, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted

that it has been settled to finality by the Supreme Court of

Nigeria that the Federal High Court only has exclusive

jurisdiction over all matters where the Federal Government

or any of its agencies is a party in civil cases and matters

arising from administration, management and control of the

Federal Government or any of its agencies.

He submitted that where the matter falls outside the

administration, management and control of the Federal

Government or any of its agencies, as in this case, where

the

5

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

subject-matter is an alleged breach of contract, the Federal

High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction.

Appellant's Counsel submitted that if the Honourable Court

below had not completely and totally ignored the binding

authorities of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cited

by the Appellant he would have come to a different

conclusion. That, for instance, in the case of Onuorah V.

K.R.P.C. Ltd (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 593 the Supreme

Court held inter alia that:

"By virtue of Section 230 (1) (q) of the 1979

Constitution as amended, now Section 251(p) of the

1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court is vested

with exclusive jurisdiction, inter alia on matters

pertaining to the administration or the management

and control of the Federal Government or any of its

agencies. In the instant case, the Appellant claim

does not fall within the ambit of Section 230 (1) (q) of

the 1979 Constitution. Consequently, the submissions

of Counsel on whether the Respondent is a subsidiary

or agent of Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation

are irrelevant."

The Court, in that case, said Counsel, further held that in

determining whether a Court has

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

jurisdiction in a particular matter or not, the Court will

examine or consider. The nature of the Plaintiffs claim as

disclosed in his Writ of Summons and statement of claim.

Also, that in that instant case, the Appellant claims are all

based on breach of a simple contract between the parties.

The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, however, does

not admit matters of simple contract between the parties.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal was right when it held

that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the

Appellants suit.

After further referring to the cases of Obiuweubi V. CBN

(2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 464; Adetayo & Ors V.

Ademola & Ors (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1215) 169 at

190; Aso Motel Kaduna Ltd V. Deyemo (2006) 7

NWLR (Pt. 978) 87 at 113, Appellant's Counsel

submitted that for the avoidance of doubt, the main relief of

the Respondents against the Appellant at the lower Court is

"An order directing the Defendant to refund forthwith to

the Plaintiff the sum of N594,696,982.84 representing

excess and wrongful charge on the Plaintiff's account with

the Defendant's while the Appellant in its counter claim

claims against

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

the Respondents "the sum of N115,797,275.27 being

the principal sum and accrued interest on the credit

facility of N50 million granted to the 1st Plaintiff by

the Defendant in August 2006."

He added that the debt which formed the subject matter of

the Appellant's claim was assigned by the Appellant to

AMCON.

He referred to the cases of Integrated Timber and

Plywood Products Ltd v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc

(2006) All FWLR (Pt. 324) 1789 and NDIC v. OKEM

Ent. Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107 that it is beyond

peradventure that the relationship that culminated in the

dispute between the parties is a simple contract and that

the Federal High Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction

over simple contracts arising from banker and customer

relationship.

Finally on issue one, Appellants Counsel submitted that

since the subject matter of the dispute between the parties

did not arise from administration, management and control

of the Federal Government, the operation and

interpretation of the Constitution as it affect the Federal

Government or any of its agencies and since it arose from

banker/customer relationship, the lower Court has

jurisdiction

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

irrespective of the parties.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents largely conceded

Appellant’s issue one when he submitted that it has been

stated by the Appellate Court that the Federal High Court

has exclusive jurisdiction on civil matters arising from

administration, management and control of the Federal

Government or any of its agencies. Also, that case law has

over the years stated that the Federal High Court will be

lacking in jurisdiction in matters relating to "simple

contract" and where it involves dispute between a Bank

and its Customer, the Federal High Court has no

jurisdiction.

He referred to the cases of Onuorah V K.R.P.C Ltd

(2005) 6 NWLR (Pt. 921) 393; Federal College of

Education Oyo V. Akin Akinyemi Suit No. CA/1/14/06

(2007) LPELR 8484 9 (CA); Jammal Steel Structures

Ltd. V. ACB Ltd. (1973) 1 All NLR (Pt. 11) 208 and

Bronik Motors Ltd V. Wema Rank Ltd (1983) SCLR

296.

He submitted however that all the cases on banks and

customer and even on simple contracts were decided

before 2010 before AMCON was established.

That these positions are no longer sacrosanct in law with

respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

High Court.

Respondents Counsel referred to the Court of Appeal

(Lagos Division) in the case of Tarzion Marine

Enterprises Ltd V. Garavetta Resources and

Investment Ltd & Anor Suit No. CA/L/1120/2010 (2013)

LPELR - 20193 (CA) and submitted that Subsection (1)

(a) (d) (p) and (s) of Section 251 of the 1999

Constitution are relevant and should be viewed to

consider whether it is Federal High Court or the State High

Court that has jurisdiction over issues related to AMCON,

the party sought to be joined.

He submitted that when Subsections (a) (d) (p) and (s)

of Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution is considered,

it would not be correct and not sacrosanct that the Federal

High Court only has exclusive jurisdiction only on matters

where the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a

party arising only from administration, management and

control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies as

argued by the Appellant.

He submitted that undoubtedly, the party sought to be

joined by the Appellant is a Federal Government agency.

That Subsections (a) (d) (p) and (s) of Section 251 (1)

of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) are relevant to

whether

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

which Court has jurisdiction, whether the Federal or State

High Court on matters related to AMCON being sought as a

party. And, therefore that all the authorities cited by the

Appellant are not relevant and helpful to the Appellant on

the issue of AMCON the party sought to be joined.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUE ONE

First, I will like to point out that whether the learned trial

Judge intended such consequences or not, the conclusion

reached in the Ruling of the learned trial Judge at page 103

of the record that "Therefore, the conclusion I reach is

that though AMCON is a necessary party to the

counter claim of the Defendant, this could (sic) Court

lacks jurisdiction on the grounds that this Court lacks

requisite jurisdiction to administer justice on AMCON

..." puts some justification to grounds 1 and 2 of the

Appellants Notice and grounds of appeal, to the effect

baring their particulars.

1. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he

refused to join the Asset Management Corporation of

Nigeria (AMCON) as a counter-claimant in the suit on

the ground that by virtue of the provisions of Section

251 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

of Nigeria, the Federal High Court has exclusivejurisdiction over all matters where the FederalGovernment or any of its agencies is a party.2. The learned trial Judge erred in law when heheld that on the authority of NEPA v. Edegbero(2002) 18 NWLR (pt. 798) 79, the Federal Highcourt has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters inwhich the Federal Government or any of itsagencies is a party.

The provision of Section 251 (1) of the 1999Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria isreproduced below:251. - (1) notwithstanding anything to the contrarycontained in this Constitution and in addition to suchother jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by anAct of the National Assembly, the Federal High Courtshall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion ofany other Court in civil causes and matters.(a) relating to the revenue of the Government of theFederation in which the said Government or anyorgan thereof or a person suing or being sued onbehalf of the said Government is a party;(b) connected with or pertaining to the taxation ofcompanies and other bodies established or carryingon business in Nigeria and

12

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

all other persons subject to federal taxation.

(c) connected with or pertaining to customs and

excise duties and export duties, including any claim

by or against the Nigeria Customs Service or any

member or officer thereof, arising from the

performance of any duty imposed under any

regulation relating to customs and excise duties and

export duties;

(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 exchanger 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 the bank;

(e) arising from the operation of the Companies and

Allied Matters Act or any other enactment replacing

that Act or regulating the operation of companies

Incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters

Act;

(f) any federal enactment relating to copyright,

patient, designs, trademarks and

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

passing-off industrial designs and merchandise marks

business names, commercial and industrial

monopolies, combines and trusts, standards of goods

and commodities and industrial standards;

(g) any admiralty jurisdiction, including shipping and

navigation on the River Niger or River Benue and

their effluents and on such other Inland waterway as

may be designated by any enactment to be an

international waterway, all Federal ports, (including

the Constitution and powers of the port, authorities

for Federal ports) and carriage by sea;

(h) diplomatic, consular and trade representation;

(i) citizenship, naturalization and aliens deportation

of persons who are not citizens of Nigeria,

extradition, immigration into and emigration from

Nigeria, passports and visas;

(i) bankruptcy and insolvency;

(k) aviation and safety of aircraft;

(l) arms, ammunition and explosives;

(m) drugs and poisons;

(n) mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil

mining geological surveys and natural gas);

(o) weights and measures;

(p) the administration or the management and

control of the Federal Government or any of its

agencies;

(q)

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the

operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so

far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its

agencies;

(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or

injunction affecting the validity of any executive or

administrative action or decision by the Federal

Government or any of its agencies; and

(s) such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and

whether to the exclusion of any other Court or not as

may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National

Assembly;

Provided that nothing in the provisions of paragraphs

(p), (q) and (r) of this subsection shall prevent a

person from seeking redress against the Federal

Government or any of its agencies in an action for

damages, injunction or specific performance where

the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.

The question whether the jurisdiction of the Federal High

Court under Section 251 (1) is restricted to the status of

the parties as in this case or extends to the subject matter

which for some time has been a bone of contention in the

Superior Courts seems finally to have now been put to rest

by the Superior Court in

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

the recent case of Wema Securities and Finance Plc V.

Nigeria Agricultural Insurance Corporation (2015) 16

NWLR (Pt. 1484) 93. In that case, the Supreme Court

disagreed and reversed the Court of Appeal on its view that

the trial Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the claim

for failure to examine the subject matter or the claims

before the Court which was within the jurisdiction of the

High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja even

when the Respondent is an agency of the Federal

Government.

The implication of the above and as it affects the instant

appeal is that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court

under Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria cannot be merely construed

to be limited to the status of the party before the Court.

Therefore, it would not be right for a State High Court to

decline jurisdiction only on account of the fact that one of

the parties is the Federal Government or any of its agencies

but must always take into account the subject matter or the

claims before the Court to determine whether indeed and

in addition to the status of the parties, the claim is

exclusively within the

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

My noble Lord, the Hon. Justice C. C. Nweze, JSC who read

the leading judgment in the case of Wema Securities and

Finance Plc V. Nigeria Agricultural Insurance

Corporation (Supra) captured the position forcefully but

beautifully when he held at page 135 of the Law Report

that:

"For the avoidance of doubt, the prevailing

jurisprudence on the actual question before this

Court under issue two - and this is evidence in the

cases cited above - is that in considering the issue of

the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under

Section 251 (1) (supra), both the status of the parties

(that is, whether it is the Federal Government or any

of its agencies) and the subject matter of the claim

(that is, whether it relates to any of the enumerated

items in the said section) have to be looked at,

Obiuweubi V. CBN (supra) 20, C - F; Oloruntoba-Oju

V. Abdul-Raheem and Ors (supra); NURTW and Anor

V. RTEAN and Ors. (supra) 47, C - G; NNPC and Ors V.

Orhiowasele and Ors (supra); PDP and Anor V. Sylva

and Ors (supra) 52 - 53, G - E; Ocholi Enojo-James V.

INEC and Ors (2015) LPELR 24494 (SC) 56 - 57;

Ohakim V. Agbaso (supra) 172, 236

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

- 237, G - D, Kakih V. PDP & Ors (supra) 374, 414, F -

G; Ahmed V. Ahmed and Ors (supra) 274, 335, C - H.

It is hoped that Counsel would, henceforth stop

hampering the smooth administration of justice and

efficient management of cases, both at the Federal

High Court and State High Courts, by their irksome

recourse to their time-worm objection to the

jurisdict ion of these Courts based on the

interpretation of Section 251 (1) (supra) now rested

by the above decisions of this Court."

Earlier on in this judgment the erudite Justice of the

Supreme Court held pungently at page 130 of the law

report in relation to the case before the Court as follows:

"As if it was minded to perpetuate the said 'frenzy of

doctrinal debates' the lower Court, as already shown

above took the view that the trial Court had no

jurisdiction to entertain the matter before it just

because the second Defendant (the Respondent in

this appeal) was an agency of the Federal

Government.

In my humble view, while it, rightly found that the

Respondent is an agency of the Federal Government

FMBN V. Olloh (supra); Idoniboye-Odu V. NNPC

(supra) its conclusion that the mere

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

presence of that agency of the Federal Government

robbed the trial Court of jurisdiction must rankle all

liberal constitutional jurisprudents and judicial

exegetes...”

Clearly therefore in relation to issue one, the learned trial

Judge was wrong

to have held in relation only to the status of the parties

that:

“... this Court lacks requisite jurisdiction to

administer justice on AMCON ..."

Issue one is resolved in favour of the Appellant.

The complaint of the Appellant in ground 3 of the Notice

and grounds of appeal in relation to its issue 2 is that "The

learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that by

the provision of Section 53 of Asset Management

Corporation of Nigeria (AMCON) Act, the Federal

High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters

involving the Asset Management Corporation of

Nigeria (AMCON)."

However, as I pointed out earlier in this judgment the real

question for determination in issue 2 is "Whether the

learned trial Judge was not justified to have refused

the Defendant's/Appellant's application to join

AMCON as a party to the suit."

The crux of the Appellant's submission in this respect

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

is that from the pleadings of both parties, the subject

matter relates to a loan transaction. And, that a loan

transaction is classified as a simple contract. That the

simple contract was entered into by the Appellant and the

Respondents which was breached by the Respondents.

The Appellant referred to the case of F.B.N Plc. V. Govt.

Ondo State (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1312) 502 at 505 and

submitted that matters of simple contract are not included

under Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution,

therefore the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory

Abuja and State High Court have exclusive jurisdiction in

such matters.

The Appellant adopted its submission under issue one and

added that there is nothing in Section 53 of AMCON Act

that confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High

Court. That the power given to the Chief Judge by the

Section is to designate any Judge to hear only matters

involving AMCON for such a period as the Chief Judge may

determine. The section according to Counsel says "to the

exclusion of any other matter" not to the exclusion of

any other Court.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that both the

provision of

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as

amended) and the provision of Section 53 of the

AMCON Act are clear and unambiguous and that the

intentions of the law makers are also very clear. That if the

law makers had intended to confer exclusive jurisdiction on

the Federal High Court in respect of matters involving

AMCON, that would have been stated clearly as was done

in Section 251 (1) of the Constitution. However that,

that would have been unconstitutional and he urged us to

so hold.

Appellant's Counsel concluded that the AMCON Act does

not and cannot confer any exclusive jurisdiction on the

Federal High Court as such provision would be inconsistent

with Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria and to that extent would be

unconstitutional, null, void and liable to be struck out.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted in essence

that while the Appellant is concerned with the jurisdiction

of the Federal High Court only in relation to sub-section

(p) of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, the

reality of the joinder of AMCON as a party to the suit will

necessitate a consideration of Subsections (a) (d)

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

(p) and (s) of the provision of Section 251 (1) of the

said Constitution.

He submitted that even by the application of Subsection

(p) of Section 251 (1) of the Constitution, the non-

peforming loan or debt arising from the banker customer

relationship now known and termed “Acquired Eligible

Bank Asset” arising from the simple contract between the

Appellant and the Respondent in a Customer/Bank

relationship assigned by the Appellant to AMCON, now

becomes an action of AMCON arising out of administration,

management and control of AMCON and banking generally.

Since the function and reason AMCON was set up was to

Acquire and managed “Acquired Eligible bank

Asset"(Section 4, AMCON Act).

Respondents' Counsel referred to the cases of Adetona &

Ors V. Igele General Enterprises Ltd Suit No. SC

237/2005, 2011 LPELR – 159 (SC) and Makalu V.

Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing (1976)

3 S.C. 60 and submitted further that the loan assigned by

the Appellant to AMCON have become an "eligible bank

asset" and therefore takes it outside the meaning of an

ordinary debt between a Bank and its customer and simple

contract and makes it a

22

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

matter pertaining to banking, banks and other fiscal

measures within the meaning of Subparagraph (d) as

such it is only the Federal High Court that will have the

jurisdiction to adjudicate on AMCON.

On the above score, Respondents' Counsel submitted that

proceeds from AMCON whose subscribers are both the

Federal Ministry of Finance and the CBN (S. 291 and S. 47

AMCON ACT) shall be shared equally among them, thus

making that proceeds a revenue of the Federal Government

accruing to the Federal Government at a future date.

He submitted that AMCON Act 2010 draws its strength

from the wording of Section 251 (1) of the 1999

Constitution and in no way inconsistent with the

provisions of the Constitution. That in fact, Section 53 of

the AMCON Act is complementing and expanding the

exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court

arising from the powers in S. 251 (1) 1999 Constitution.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUE TWO

The justification or otherwise of the refusal of the

Defendant's Appellant's application by the learned trial

Judge to join AMCON as a party to the suit starts with the

ground of the Defendant's Appellant's application itself.

The

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

grounds of the Appellant's application to join AMCON as a

party to the suit which forms the subject matter of this

appeal are as follows:

(a) The debt, the subject matter of the counter claim

has been assigned by the Defendant to AMCON.

(b) The decision and/or any order made in this case

will affect AMCON.

(c) AMCON is therefore a necessary party to this case.

In the ensuring ruling by the learned trial Judge, he agreed

with the Defendant/Appellant that AMCON is a necessary

party but that he does not have jurisdiction over AMCON.

In the instant case, the learned trial Judge could have given

a wrong perhaps insufficient reasons to have refused the

Appellant’s application for joinder of AMCON as a party to

the Suit. However, in all the circumstances of the case, the

learned trial Judge was right to have refused the

Appellant's application for joinder of AMCON in the

particular suit.

There may well be circumstances where AMCON as a party

could be accommodated within the jurisdiction of a State

High Court but the instant case is an exception to such.

This is because even where the suit before the Court is

agreeable in relation

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

to a simple contract between banker and customer, the

Defendant's/Appellant’s application to join AMCON and the

reason for so doing would have' changed the template of

the subject matter in the suit from that of a simple contract

to that "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."

In the contemplation of the provision of S. 251 (1) (1) of

the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

The Supreme Court per Pats-Acholonu JSC in the case of

Societe Bancaire (Nigeria) Limited V. Margarida

Salvado DE LLUCH (2012) 2 BFLR 326 at 335 declared

that Section 251 (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as

amended) connotes transactions on matters which are

related to banking or the operation of a bank. Specifically,

that "the expression connected with or pertaining to

imports the state of affair where the matter involves a

transaction which is peculiar to the banking

operation and can only

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

be carried on by the bank or a financial institution. It

equally connotes the operational duties of a bank in

respect of or in relation to its functions within the

limits of its license."

Clearly, the assignment of the Appellant's debt to AMCON

is an action connected with banking under Section 251

(1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

Learned Counsel for the Respondent was right when he

submitted that the loan assigned by the Appellant to

AMCON have become an 'eligible bank asset' and therefore

takes it outside the meaning of an ordinary debt between a

Bank and its customer and simple contract and makes it a

matter pertaining to banking, bank and other fiscal

measures within the meaning of Subparagraph (d) of

Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution and that as

such it is only the Federal High Court that will have the

jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters.

The learned trial Judge himself was not totally oblivious of

these circumstances that was probably the reason why he

made references albeit without adequate explanation to the

provision of Section 251 (1) (d) and Section 53 of the

AMCON Act in the ruling at page 102 of the record

26

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

of appeal.

Finally, in answer to issue two, the learned trial Judge was

justified to have refused to Appellant's application to join

AMCON as a party to the suit.

Issue two is resolved against the Appellant.

In this appeal, even though issue one was resolved in

favour of the Appellant the determinant issue in the appeal

is issue two which was resolved against the Appellant.

Consequently, this appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly

dismissed.

N30, 000.00 costs is awarded against the Appellant.

MOHAMMED AMBI-USI DANJUMA, J.C.A.: I agree thatthe appeal be allowed based on the determinant Issue No. 2of the Appellant.

The trial judge was right in declining Jurisdiction in the suitand in refusing to grant the application for the joinder ofAMCON.

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I had the privilege ofreading in advance the leading judgment just delivered bymy learned brother Mojeed Adekunle Owoade, JCA.

He has comprehensively dealt with the issues fordetermination. I adopt the reasoning and conclusions in theleading judgment in also dismissing the appeal.

27

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)

I abide by the order as to costs.

28

(201

6) LP

ELR-40

155(

CA)