CORAM
PARTIES
ACCESS BANK PLC
RAY OKPU
AREA(S) OF LAW
Not Available
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant granted loan facility to the Respondent for purposes of financing the purchase of blue chip shares in various companies. Upon the premise that it was no longer indebted to the Appellant on the loan facility, the Respondent commenced an action at the Federal High Court, against the Appellant claiming declaratory and injunctive reliefs, among which is a declaration that the Defendant had surreptitiously and fraudulently sold 26,300,000 units of Intercontinental Bank Plc (now Access Bank Plc) shares, belonging to the Plaintiff without crediting the sum of N689,267,000.00, realized from the sales into the Plaintiffs Access Bank Plc. current account number 0100003720, as part repayment of the N2 Billion term loan granted to Plaintiff by the Defendant.
Upon being served with the Court processes the Appellant entered a conditional appearance, filed its statement of defence as well as a preliminary objection urging the court to dismiss and/or strike out the Respondents action for want of jurisdiction, that the Supreme Court in Adelekan v. Ecu-line NV (2006) 12 NWLR (pt. 993) page 33 at 52 paragraphs. F-H per Onnoghen JSC, on the issue of the Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, had this to say: The provisions of Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, hereinafter called the 1999 Constitution, are very clear and unambiguous. It is the Section that confers Jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, which Jurisdiction clearly does not include dealing with any case of simple contract or damages for negligence as envisaged by the action before the trial Court.
The trial court in its ruling upheld its jurisdiction to entertain the action and dismissed the preliminary objection. Dissatisfied with the decision, the Appellant have filed this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Considering the facts of the Suit as contained in the Statement of Claim, whether the Lower Court was right when it found that the subject matter of the Suit did not border on simple contract and consequently finding that the Court had jurisdiction to determine the Suit?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
JURISDICTION OF COURT IN A BANKER/CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP – EXTENT OF THE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE HIGH COURT IN A BANKER/CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP
The facts of this matter cannot be classified in the ranks of opacity. The facts are simple and straightforward. They are not convoluted and there is no contest on the facts. The disceptation borders on interpretation to be placed on the relationship between the parties and how two settled principles of law would apply to the said relationship. On the one hand, it is now settled law that by virtue of the proviso to Section 251 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended) , the lower Court, the Federal High Court, and the State High Courts have concurrent jurisdictions in respect of banker/customer relationships involving transactions between an individual customer and his bank: NDIC vs. Okem Enterprises Ltd (supra). The said Section 251 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution (as Amended) provides:
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 causes and matters-
(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 the bank;
It seems to me that what the above provision seeks to achieve by the proviso thereof is to allow State High Courts share the exclusive jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal High Court in banking matters, but only as it relates to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and the bank. So with respect to such disputes arising from transactions between the individual customer and the bank, both the Federal High Court and the State High Court would have jurisdiction. See UBA Plc vs. BTL Industries Ltd (2006) LPELR (3404) 1 at 77-80 and FMBN vs. NDIC (1999) 2 NWLR (PT 591) 333”.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINANTS OF THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT
“It is rudimentary law that the jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the plaintiffs claim as endorsed in the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim: Tukur vs. Govt Of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) 517, OHMB vs. Garba (2002) 14 NWLR (PT 788) 538 at 563, Izenkwe vs. Nnadozie (1953) 14 WACA 361 at 363, Onuorah vs. KRPC (supra) at 10 and 16 and Western Steel Works Ltd vs. Iron & Steel Workers Union (supra)”,
BANKER/CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP – NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A BANKER AND ITS CUSTOMER
Would the fact that a customer of a bank entered into a loan transaction with the bank make the customer to cease being a customer, such that the loan transaction will not be part of the existing banker/customer relationship between them? This is the purport of the Appellants contention.
I have ruminated and mulled over the Appellants contention, but I am not enthused by the same as it cannot represent the correct legal position. First and foremost, it is abecedarian that the relationship of a bank customer and a banker is contractual: UBN Plc vs. Chimaeze (2014) LPELR (22699) 1 at 42 and UBN PLC vs. Ajabule (2011) LPELR (8239) 1 at 39. What is the nature and scope of this contractual relationship? Is the nature and scope of the contractual relationship such that accommodates the facts of this matter within a banker/customer relationship? In Bank Of The North Ltd vs. Yau (2001) LPELR (746) 1 at 45-46, Ayoola, JSC, provided the answer in the following words:
In the course of carrying on business of banking, a bank enters into several contractual relationships and performs various roles. It is important in an action between bank and customer to be clear which of the several contractual relationships forms or form the basis of the action. In this case, it is pertinent to note only four of these possible relationships, namely:
(i) the relationship of creditor and debtor that arises in regard to the customers funds in the hands of the bank;
( ii) the relationship of creditor and debtor that arises when the bank loans money to the customer or allows him to overdraw on his account;
(iii) the relationship that arises from the role of the bank as a collecting bank of cheques drawn on other banks or branches of the same bank by a third person, and
(iv) the possible role of the bank as a holder for value of a negotiable instrument.
(Emphasis supplied)
See also ECOBANK vs. Anchorage Leisures Ltd(2018) LPELR (45125) 1 at 28-31.
LOAN FACILITY – WHETHER A LOAN FACILITY GRANTED BY A BANK TO ITS CUSTOMER IS A SIMPLE CONTRACT WHICH DOES NOT ARISE FROM A BANKER/CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP
The uncontroverted and unchallenged cause of action in this matter is the term loan facility granted to the Respondent by the Appellant. It is one of the several contractual relationships, which a bank enters into in the course of carrying on the business of banking; the relationship of a creditor and debtor that arises when the bank loans money to the customer. The Appellant as banker gave a term loan to the Respondent as its customer. The Respondent contending that it is no longer indebted to the Appellant on the term loan sued claiming sundry reliefs. This is undoubtedly a clear case of a transactional dispute arising from a banker customer relationship vide Bank Of The North Ltd vs. Yau (supra), ECOBANK vs. Anchorage Leisures Ltd (supra) and Standard Trust Bank Ltd vs. Interdrill Ltd (2006) LPELR (9848) 1 at 28 . It is, most respectfully, ludicrous, preposterous and specious for the Appellant to contend that the loan facility it granted its customer in the course of carrying on banking business is a simple contract which does not arise from a banker/customer relationship. That cannot be the law and I vehemently refuse to learn such disingenuous legal sophistry!
The relationship between the parties from the averments in the Statement Claim is a banker customer relationship. There is nothing in the Statement of Claim to show a matter relating to a simple contract. The lower Court consequently had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the action: NDIC vs. Okem Enterprises Ltd (supra), Merill Guaranty Savings& Loans Ltd vs. Worldgate Building Society Ltd (2013) 1 NWLR (PT 1336) 581 and ECOBANK vs. Anchorage Leisures Ltd (supra) at 21-23 and 36-38.
JURISDICTION OF STATE HIGH COURT – WHETHER THE STATE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ISSUES OF LOAN FACILITY GRANTED BY A BANK TO ITS CUSTOMER
In NDIC V. Okem Ent. Ltd (supra) at 188. Uwaifo. JSC. decisively and incisively proclaimed:
There is no rational basis, as has been shown, for holding that under Section 251 (1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution, State High Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and the bank. It has been demonstrated that in such matters the Federal High Court and State High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
It is decipherable from that magisterial pronouncement that loan facility falls outside the slim perimeter of simple contract, which the lower Court is not endowed with the jurisdiction to try matters germinating from it. The ex cathedra authority donates co-extensive jurisdiction to the lower Court and the High Court of State over matters that orbit around the proviso such as the one that transfigured into this appeal. In effect, the lower Court was the forum competens for the respondent to ventilate his grievance in the case that parented the appeal. The lower Court paid due loyalty to the law when it claimed and assumed jurisdiction over the respondent’s suit,”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)|
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT