CORAM
PARTIES
CHIEF MICHAEL EMERAH APPELLANTS
NIGERIA INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD(CITI BANK NIGERIA) RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Claimant/Respondent instituted an action at the lower Court under Order 11 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 seeking for an order for the repayment of the sum of N144, 000,000, being the liability limit on him of the amount borrowed by Michmerah International Ltd, a company to which he is the managing Director. The loan was given out and utilized but it was not paid back. The Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment whilst the Appellant filed a counter affidavit. The trial court after considering same, granted the prayer of the Respondent on the premise that the Appellant’s affidavit did not disclose any good defence on the merit to warrant the matter to be heard in the general cause list. The court entered judgment in favour of the Claimant in the sum of N144 Million naira and interest at the rate of 215 percent per annum from 2/06/2004 until final liquidation of the judgment debt. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s judgment, the Appellant has appealed to this court, challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the suit.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the processes of the court initiating the suit in the lower court are competent before it. Whether the subject matter before the lower court is a matter within the jurisdiction of the State High Court.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
LACK OF JURISDICTION – STATUS OF A DECISION TAKEN BY COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION
“Any decision taken by a court without jurisdiction will amount to a nullity that is without deference to the brilliance of the judgment. See; Owner of the MV Arabella vs. Nig. Agricultural Insurance corporation NSCQR Vol. 34 2008 page 1091; Chief of Air Staff & Ors vs. Iyen (2005)6 NWLR (Pt. 922) 496; Onyero & Anor vs. Nwadike (2011) 12 SC 1”.
JURISDICTION OF A COURT – SOURCES OF THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT
“The jurisdiction of a court is conferred by statute and can be determined by the claim of the Claimant. See Josiah Ayodele Adetayo & Ors vs. Kunle Ademola & Ors NSCQR Vol. 42 2010 page 1133; Chief (Mrs.) Olufunke & Anor vs. Ondo State Independent Eletoral Commission NSCQR vol. 28 2006 page 545: Hon. Gabriel Yunisa & Ors vs. Mr. Michael Adejoh NSCQR Vol. 44 2010 page 558”.
JURISDICTION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL HIGH COURT – EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL HIGH COURT
“The jurisdiction of the State High Court is entrenched in Section 272 of the Constitution and that of the Federal High Court is as entrenched in Section 251 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court does not extend beyond the matters provided for in Section 251. The State High Court has no jurisdiction in such matters that are within Section 251”.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL HIGH COURT IN DISPUTE RELATING TO BANKER CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP
“In simple contract matters such as the matter covered in this appeal, the State High Court along with the Federal High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to handle the matter. It is not obviously within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court since the matter deals purely a banker/customer relationship. In Ecobank Nig Ltd vs. Anchorage Leisures Ltd & Ors ELC (2018) 3049 SC 1, the apex court held:
“From the provisions of Section 251 (1) (d) CFRN, the Federal High Court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction in relation to issues pertaining to banks, banking and other financial institutions but when the dispute relates to banker/customer relationship, the jurisdiction is not exclusive and the said jurisdiction is concurrently shared with the Federal High Court and the State High Courts and that of the Federal capital Territory. The interpretation clearing the grey area on the confusion that would have otherwise arisen is seen in the case of NDIC vs. Okem Ent. Ltd., (2004)10 NWLR (Pt. 680)107 at 221”
ORIGINATING PROCESSES – REQUIREMENT FOR THE VALIDITY OF ORIGINATING PROCESSES
“For those originating processes to be valid, they have to be signed by a person who is entitled to practice law in Nigeria as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in line with section 2 and 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act. As properly submitted by the Appellant, the court process if not so signed will be incompetent and clearly the decision reached by a court on an incompetent process will be a nullity since the court will be said to lack jurisdiction since the process is void ab initio. See PDP vs. Ekeagbara & Ors (2016) LPELR- 40849 (CA); Okpe vs. Fan Milk Plc & Anor (2016) LPELR- 42562 (SC)”.
COURT PROCESS- HOW SHOULD A COURT PROCESS BE SIGNED?
“The law as stated by the Appellant is good law, which is, a court process must be signed by a person who is a legal practitioner and not by a person who is not one or even by the firm of lawyers. In other words, a writ has to be signed by a lawyer qualified to practice law and not by his firm. In GTBank vs. Innoson Nig. Ltd (2017) LPELR 42368 (SC), the apex court per Bage, JSC at pages 26-28 held:
“In total support, I wish to add a few words of my own, on signing of Court process, In the name of firm or partnership, contrary to the Provisions of Section 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act LFN, 2004. The decision of this Court in Okafor vs. Nweke (2007) 3 S.C. (Pt.11) 55 at 64-65, was basically determined based on the Provision of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 . Section 2(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 provides as follows:-
“Subject to the provisions to this Act, a person shall be entitled to practice as a Barrister and Solicitor if, and only if, his name is on the roll.
Section 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act supra provides that:
“In this Act unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say.
Legal Practitioner means a person entitled in accordance with the Provisions of this Act to Practice as a Barrister or as a Barrister and Solicitor, either generally or for the purpose of any particular office or proceedings.” The purpose of Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioners Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 , is to ensure that only a Legal Practitioner whose name is on the roll of the Supreme Court should sign Court processes. It is to ensure responsibility and accountability on the part of a legal practitioner who signs a Court process. It is to ensure that fake lawyers do not invade the profession. See; Ibrahim vs. Barde (1996)9 NWLR (Pt.474) 513; U. A. Ventures vs. FCMB (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt. 547) 546; IBWA vs. Imano (Nig) Ltd & Anor (1988)7 SC. (Reprint) (Pt. III) 114. The words employed in drafting Sections 2(1) and 24 of the Legal Practitioner Act, Law of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, are simple and straight forward.
The literal construction of the Law is that Legal Practitioners who are animate personalities should sign Court processes and not a firm of Legal Practitioners which is inanimate and cannot be found in the roll of this Court. See; F.B.N. PLC & 3 Ors vs. Maiwada & 2 ORS (2012) 5 S.C. (PT. III)1; Alawiye vs. Ogunsanya (2012)12 SC. (Pt. II)1; I am in tandem with the Lead Judgment that, the written addresses filed on 6th April, 2016 and 21st June, 2016 are clearly incompetent. The signature on each of them cannot be verified or traced to any registered Legal Practitioner. I also strike them out.”
See; Ikpezanyashi & Ors vs. Jehni & Ors ( 2018) LPELR 44402 (CA); Okpe vs. Fan Milk Plc & Anor (supra); Nigeria Army vs. Samuel & Ors ( 2013) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1375) 466.
BURDEN OF PROOF – HE WHO ALLEGES MUST PROOF
If the Appellant has any problem or challenge to the effect that Babatunde Fagbohunlu is not a lawyer, the burden is on him to prove that as the law is clear and it is that the person who alleges must prove. See; Akinbade & Anor vs. Babatunde & Ors (2017) LPELR – 43463 (SC); Akerele vs. Atunrase & Ors (1969)1, ANLR 195; Onyenge & Ors vs. Ebere (2004) 6-7 SC. 52.
SIGNING OF COURT PROCESS – WHETHER THE NAME OF AN INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTES SIGNATURE UNDER THE LAW
“The name on the document is Babatunde Fagbohunlu. The name alone constitute a signature as the law is clear to the effect that a signature can be the name or even initials of the name. See; Oko vs. Ntaji & Ors (2014) LPELR- 24248 (CA); Ngun vs. Mobil Producing Nig. Unltd (2013); LPELR -20197 (CA”.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999|High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004|Legal Practitioners Act|