OSAYEMWENRE AMAYO VS OSAYENDE ERINMWINGBOVO
June 6, 2025ALHAJI IBRAHIM ABDULHAMID V. TALAL AKAR & ANOR
June 6, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006) Legalpedia (SC) 16411
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 5, 2006
Suit Number: SC. 289/2002
CORAM
S.M.A. BELGORE (PRESIDED) – JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Lead Judgment)
PARTIES
ASSOCIATED DISCOUNT HOUSE LTD APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The dispute was originally at the Federal High Court. The appellant arose over its effort to recover a N120 million loan granted to the respondent and for which a property was given as security. The respondent filed a motion objecting to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. The objection was upheld by the Federal High Court and the case was transferred to the Lagos High Court. At the Lagos High Court, the respondent again objected to the jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court on ground that it was a banking matter over which only Federal High Court had jurisdiction. The objection was overruled in which the Court held that it was a mere Banker/Customer relationship over which State High Courts have jurisdiction. An appeal against that ruling to the Court of Appeal was allowed. The appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court. ?
HELD
The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the Court below was set aside, and the ruling of the High Court was affirmed.
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal was correct when it held that the High Court of Lagos State does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the Appellant.Whether the Court of Appeal was correct when it held that the High Court of Lagos State does not have the power to transfer a matter in respect of which it lacks jurisdiction to the Federal High Court.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
“Where a provision in a statute is liable to be construed either in the positive or in the negative form or connotation, then it is definitely more beneficial to adopt the interpretation that is more in tune with the public will and benefit.” Per I. C. PATS ACHOLONU, JSC
A COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION CAN TRANSFER
“A Court that has no jurisdiction to entertain a case can make an order of transfer.” Per I. C. PATS ACHOLONU, JSC
CASES CITED
United States V. Shipp (208) U.S. 563, 51 L. ed 319, 27 S. Ct. 165, 8 Ann Cas 265 (1906) United States V. United Mine Workers of America U.S.S.C.R. 91 L. ed 884 at 911?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
None
