CORAM

PARTIES

AREWA PAPER CONVERTERS LTD APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellant being a customer of the Nigeria Universal Bank Limited was indebted to the Bank in its current account. The Respondent/plaintiff filed an action for the recovery of the debt from the appellant under the undefended list procedure before the Failed Banks Tribunal. In the course of the hearing of the matter, the Tribunal granted the Respondent’s application to serve the appellant by means of substituted service which on return the Tribunal was satisfied that the appellant was duly served. In the absence of any notice of intention to defend the action in accordance with the rules, the Tribunal entered judgment against the appellant in terms of the amount claimed. There was no appeal against this judgment by the appellant up to when the Tribunals dissolving the Tribunals and transferring all pending part heard matters to the Federal High Court for hearing and determination came into force. Five months after, the appellant filed an application at the Federal High Court asking the court to set aside the judgment of the Failed Banks Tribunal. In the same application, the appellant also sought for an interim relief of staying the execution of the same judgment pending the determination of the application to set aside the judgment. The Federal High Court dismissed the appellant’s application. Dissatisfied with the dismissal of its application, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. But before the Appeal could be heard, the Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to the hearing of the appeal. When the appeal came up for hearing, the court below decided to take the Preliminary Objection first and upon hearing of the same, upheld it and struck out the appellants appeal. The appellant’s further appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

The appeal was dismissed, and the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal for striking out the appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and determine the appeal.

ISSUES

1. Whether the appellant’s appeal from the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal was incompetent by reason of the provisions of section 5 (2) of decree No 18 of 1994 (as amended) and Tribunals (Certain Consequential Amendments, etc.) Decree No.62 of 1999, which prescribes finality for the judgment of the defunct Failed Banks Tribunal?2. Whether the court below was not in error when it failed to decide the appeal in the alternative on its merit regardless of the fact that it had hinged its decision on a preliminary jurisdictional point, which could be set aside by the Supreme Court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT IS INCOMPETENT TO REJECT RIGHTS ESTABLISHED BY THE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION

“The trial Federal High Court by virtue of provisions of Decree No. 62 of 1999, is incompetent to vary and/or reject rights thus established by the court of competent jurisdiction namely, the Failed Banks Tribunal. This means even if there were some errors in the judgment of the Tribunal against the appellant, it is for the competent court to which an appeal lies against the judgment.” Per MAHMUD MOHAMMED, JSC

CASES CITED

Onigbede V. Balogun (1975) 4 SCUgwuh V. A.G. East Central State (1975) 6 SC 13Boardman V. Sokoto N.A. (1965) 1 All NLR 214Obiyan V. Governor of Mid-West (1972) 4 SC 248 Mohammed V. C.O.P. (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt 630) 331

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT