IFENNE V. A.B.U, ZARIA & ORS
March 19, 2025EMMANUEL ODILI V MRS AGBEKE OGUNSANWO
March 19, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2023-01) Legalpedia 30248 (SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Holden at Abuja
Fri Jan 13, 2023
Suit Number: SC.314/2007
CORAM
JOHN INYANG OKORO
CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI
MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA
HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU
PARTIES
MUFUTAU AJAYI
APPELLANTS
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, CAPITAL MARKET, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant’s case is that when he was in active service with African Petroleum PLC and as its Finance and Accounts Manager, it was alleged that he authorized the issuance of a Prospectus dated 30/3/2000 for offer of sale of shares of 86,400,000 ordinary shares of 50k each of N28.50 per share containing an untrue statement that the total indebtedness of the Company as at 30/6/1999 was N10.2 billion whereas subsequent revelations indicated that the Company’s indebtedness was over N22 billion.
He claimed that the Administrative Proceeding Committee (APC), without fair hearing, penalized him. The Respondents however claimed that they served him a notice to appear but he failed to and so they proceeded, found him liable and penalized him.
He went to the Federal High Court to have them quash the decision of the APC but they declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Investment and Securities Tribunal (IST). Dissatisfied with the ruling he went to the Court of Appeal but they affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court.
He was still dissatisfied and hence this appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
“Whether the lower Court was right to affirm that the trial Federal High Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s suit.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
FEDERAL HIGH COURT – THE POWER TO MAKE AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI
There is no doubt that the Federal High Court has the power to make an order of Certiorari. See Section 14(1) of the Federal High Court Act.
In fact, order of certiorari lies; (a) Where a party was denied fair hearing, (b) Where an inferior Court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, (c) Where there are errors in the record of the inferior Court, (d) Where a conviction or order has been obtained by collusion, or by fraud. The object of the prerogative Writ of Certiorari is for the superior Court to quash arbitrary decisions of inferior Courts, especially when they exceed their jurisdiction and make pronouncements that are wrong. See Per RHODES-VIVOUR, JSC in ESABUNOR & ANOR V. FAWEYA & ORS (2019) LPELR-46961(SC) (PP. 32 PARAS. A). – U. M. Abba Aji, JSC
JURISDICTION – ANY GRIEVANCE WITH THE APC SHOULD BE INSTITUTED WITH THE IST
The lower Court at page 240 of the record rightly and I quote held that:
“…the proper forum is the Investment and Securities Tribunal on appeal from the Administrative Panel whose report the Appellant felt aggrieved over and certainly not the Federal High Court which is not endowed with the necessary powers to come into that grievance, a specific judicial or quasi-judicial body such as the Tribunal having been so empowered. That power does not share with the Federal High Court which Court was correct in keeping its distance.”
Based on the foregoing, it implies that any grievance, whether on denial of fair hearing by the APC as in the present case, rule of law, equity, facts or law, etc., should be instituted in the Investment and Securities Tribunal (1ST). – U. M. Abba Aji, JSC
JURISDICTION – A COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION CANNOT GIVE FURTHER ORDERS
“Where a Court has declined jurisdiction, it also lacks the power and vires to do any other thing. Where a Court does not have jurisdiction, there is nothing more it can do. A dead man cannot speak or give orders anymore. Thus, a Court that has no jurisdiction cannot give further orders or carry out any other thing other than showing that it has no jurisdiction.
Anything done by a Court amount to a nullity and any other order therefrom is also a nullity. Per OGUNDARE, JSC in A. SAVOIA LTD V. SONUBI (2000) LPELR-7(SC) (PP. 19 PARAS. D-G) pointed this out: “I think the Court of Appeal acted wrongly in making the order it made… the Court’s jurisdiction to interfere with the award of an arbitrator is limited to setting aside an award or remitting a matter to the arbitrator for reconsideration. The Court has no jurisdiction to determine any matter, the subject of an arbitration proceedings. The trial High Court acted properly in this case in remitting the matter of the Appellant’s claim for N5,000 to the arbitrator for consideration and resolution. With respect to their Lordships of the Court of Appeal, they acted wrongly in making the order that the sum be paid to the Appellant by the Respondent..”.
Similarly, Per KARIBI-WHYTE, JSC in AKINBOBOLA V. PLISSON FISKO (NIG) LTD & ORS (1991) LPELR-343(SC) (PP. 23-24 PARAS. E) held: “The Court below being an appellate Court, cannot exercise jurisdiction in the matter where the trial Judge is without jurisdiction. It only exercises its appellate jurisdiction to correct the errors of the learned Judge. Hence it will have no jurisdiction to make any consequential orders after it has held that the learned Judge had none. Accordingly, having held that the learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction to make consequential orders, the Court below could not have made any because it can only exercise jurisdiction on appeal “as if the proceedings had been instituted in the Court of Appeal as Court of first instance… – U. M. Abba Aji, JSC”
CAPITAL MARKET – ISSUES ARE WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE IST
“The law is well settled that disputes bordering on capital market operations and investments are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. Indeed, Section 284(1) of the Investments and Securities Act (No.27)2007, provides that the Investment and Securities Tribunal shall have jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other Court or Tribunal or body, to hear and determine any question of law or dispute involving:
(a) a decision or determination of the commission in the operation and application of this Act, and in particular, relating to any dispute.
(i) between capital market operators;
(ii) between capital market operators and their clients;
(iii) between an investor and securities exchange or capital trade point or clearing and settlement agency;
(iv) between capital market operators and self-regulatory organization;
(b) the commission and self-regulatory organization;
(c) a capital market operator and the commission;
(d) an investor and the commission;
(e) an issuer of securities and the commission, and
(f) disputes arising from the administration, management and operation of collective investment schemes.”
By virtue of the above provision, therefore, the Federal High Court was right to decline jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s application for an order of certiorari. It follows, therefore, that the Court below has no vires to assume jurisdiction over a matter which had no foundation at the trial Court.
See Madukolu Vs. Nkemdilim (1962)2 SCNLR 341, Western Steel Works Limited Vs. Iron and Steel Workers Union of Nigeria (1986)3 NWLR (PL30)617. – Per J. I. Okoro, JSC
CONCURRENT FINDINGS – CONDUCT OF THE COURT AND GRANTED EXCEPTIONS
“The law is settled, firmly as a policy, that this Court would not interfere with such concurrent findings save in identified circumstances which include:
(a) Substantial error on the face of the Record.
(b) The finding/s or decision/s are not supported by the evidence placed before the trial Court.
(c) The decision/s was reached on the application of wrong principles of substantive law or procedure.
(d) The finding/s or decision/s are unreasonable and defy logical and sound reasoning to occasion a miscarriage of justice.
See Chikwendu v. Mbamali (1980) 3 & 4 SC, 11, Enang v. Adu (1981) 11/12 SC, 25, Nwachike v. lbekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (pt. 67) 718 at 740, (1987) 12 SC, 14, Layinka v. Makinde (2002) 5 SC (pt. 1) 109 at 113, Oshoboja v. Amida (2009) 18 NWLR (pt. 1172) 188, (2009) LPELR – 2803 (SC), Agbomeji v. Bakare (1998) 7 SC (pt. 1) 10, (1998) 9 NWLR (pt. 564) 1, Nwagwu v. Okonkwo (1987) 3 NWLR (pt. 60) 314 at 325, Martins v. C.O.P. (2012) LPELR- 9821 (SC). – Per M. L. Garba, JSC”
ORDER OF CERTIORARI – IST LACKS JUDICIAL POWER TO MAKE THIS ORDER
“I agree with the learned Appellant’s Counsel that there is nothing whatsoever in the ISA (1999) or even the extant Investments and Securities Act 2007, which is the current statute relating to the IST, that gives the IST judicial power to make the orders of certiorari and injunction being sought by the Appellant in his application at the Federal High Court. Thus, if the Appellant goes to the IST and the IST finds merit in his application, it will have no power to actually make the necessary orders sought by the Appellant.
See EBONG v. SEC (2017) LPELR-43547(CA), SONNAR (NIG.) LTD & ANOR v. PARTENREEDRI M. S. NORDWIND OWNERS OF THE SHIP M. V. NORDWIND & ANOR (1987) LPELR-3494(SC) and ADESANYA v. PALM LINE LTD (1967) LAGOS L.R. 18. – Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC”
SPECIAL PROCEDURE – EFFECT OF DEPARTURE OR NON-COMPLIANCE
“It is a well-settled principle that where a special procedure is prescribed for the enforcement of a particular right or remedy, non-compliance with or departure from such a procedure is fatal to the enforcement of the remedy.
See JACK V. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI (2004) 17 NSCQR 90 @ 101-102 paras. H-E, TUKUR v. TARABA STATE GOVT. (1997) 51 LRCN 1479 @ 1520 paras. P – EE, DONGTOE v. CIVIL SERVICE – COMMISSION (2001) 86 LRCN 1204 @ 1232 paras. E – F and SAUDE v. ABDULLAHI (1989) 4 NWLR (PT. 116) 387.
– Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC”
CONCURRENT FINDINGS – GROUNDS FOR DISTURBING CONCURRENT FINDINGS
“It is a long-settled law that the only way to disturb those concurrent findings is to show that they came from a perverse posturing and from what can be seen on the record, there was no perversity nor a misapplication of the law either procedurally or substantially. Also, no miscarriage of justice has occurred as a consequence. Therefore, those findings must be left undisturbed.
See AMOBI v. OGIDI UNION (NIG) & ORS (2021) LPELR-57337(SC) Pg. 52-53 paras. A – C, ROE LTD v. UNN (2018) 6 NWLR Pt. 1616 Pg…..
– Per H. M. Ogunwumiju, JSC”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Investment and Securities Act, 1999 and 2007
The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
Securities and Exchange Commission Rules and Regulations
