CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

ECOBANK NIGERIA LIMITED APPELLANTS

---

1. ANCHORAGE LEISURES LIMITED2. SILOAM GLOBAL LIMITED3. HONEY FLOUR MILLS PLC RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Oceanic Bank Plc advanced credit facilities to the Respondents. The Appellant herein by an acquisition agreement took over the Oceanic Bank Plc together with its asset, liabilities and obligations. The Appellant eventually embarked on a process of recovery of debts owed including that of the Respondents borne out of the aforementioned credit facilities. The Respondents through the Chairman of Honeywell Group Ltd. (Oba Otudeko) entered into negotiations with the leadership of the Appellant on the way forward to recover the said debts, to which an agreement was reached and concretized via correspondences whereby out of the N5.5 Billion outstanding debt owed by the Respondents to the Appellant, the Respondents were granted a concession to repay only the sum of N3.5 Billion in full settlement of the debt owed. It was also agreed that the initial sum of N500, 000, 000 should be paid immediately while the balance is to be repaid before the Central Bank examiners who came for inspection in the Appellant bank will conclude their assignment and leave. The said N500, 000,000 was paid followed by the repayment of the balance N3 Billion. However, upon request for a letter of discharge the Appellants insisted that the full N5.5 Billion must be paid because the Respondents did not keep to the terms of the 22-7-13 agreement having not cleared the debt before the CBN examiners left the Bank. Following further threats to publish the Respondents as delinquent debtors, the Respondent filed a suit at the Federal High Court, to which the Appellant herein file a Preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Court. The trial Court in a considered ruling dismissed the Preliminary objection and held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Suit. Dissatisfied with the rulings of the Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the lower court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Suit in this appeal as presented in the Respondents’ statement of claim predicated on a simple contract and showing no cause of action against the Appellant herein? Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the lower court was not correct to have assumed jurisdiction over the case before it?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER A COURT IS OBLIGATED TO EXPUNGE COMPETENT ISSUES FROM INCOMPETENT ONES.

---

“I am not unaware of a long list of authorities including those cited by learned senior counsel for the Respondents to the fact that it is not the duty of the court to excise competent issues from the incompetent ones. In Premier Records Ltd Vs Nwacukwu (2008) LPELR (4866) CA, this court held that it is not the business of the court to carry out such exercise, as doing so will lead to descending into the arena of contest by the court. See also Ayologu Vs Agu (1998) 1 NWLR (PT 532)129, Nwadike Vs Ibekwe (1989)4 NWLR (PT 67) 718; Bereyin Vs Gbobo (1989) 1 NWLR (PT 97)372.”

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT – SIGNIFICANCE OF JURISDICTION OF COURT

---

“The importance of jurisdiction to adjudicate on any matter by a court or tribunal cannot be overemphasized. Jurisdiction is a serious matter when raised in any court because it tantamount to competence and competence compasses the composition of the court, the territorial jurisdiction of the court and substantial jurisdiction of the court. It is also the basis on which any court or tribunal tries a case because it is the authority that a court has to decide matter before it. Therefore where a court exercises jurisdiction which it does not have, any decision reached or order made therefrom amounts to nothing. It is a nullity abinito. See Yusuf Vs Obasanjo (2004) 5 SCM 193; State Vs Ongoruwa (1991-1992) ALL NLR 579; Utih Vs Onoyivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (PT 166) 166; (1991) 1 SCNJ 25; Ijebu-Ode Local Government Vs Adedeji Balogun & Co Ltd (1991) 1 NWLR (PT 166) 136; Oloba Vs Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (PT 84) 508; PDP VS Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (PT 1316) 85.
The importance of jurisdiction was also reiterated by this court in First Bank Of Nigeria Plc Vs Government Of Ondo State (2012) 11 NWLR (PT 1312) 502 where at pages 515 to 516 it held per ADUMEIN JCA that:-
“A question of jurisdiction is a radical and fundamental matter touching on the court’s competence to adjudicate upon a matter and it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in a lawsuit. It can be raised in any manner by a party or even suo motu by the court. The issue of jurisdiction can even be raised for the first time in the Apex court —-.”
See also Obiuwebi VS CBN (2011) 2-3 SC (PT 1) 46.”

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT – DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION OF COURT

---

“In determining the jurisdiction of a court to entertain a Suit, the primary and central focus of the court is the writ of summons, the statement of claim and the relief sought therein, this is because only the claims or reliefs donate jurisdiction to the court. Therefore when an issue of jurisdiction is being determined, the law is that it must be determined on the Plaintiff averments in his statement of claim and not on the Defendant’s answer in the statement of defence. See A.G Kwara vs Agbaso (2010) 6-7 SC 85; Olofu Vs Itodo (2010) 12 SC (PT 1) 165. In PDP Vs Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (PT 1316) 85 at 127, the Supreme Court per RHODE VIVOUR JSC emphasized on the issue as follows:-
“Jurisdiction of a court to entertain a Suit is resolved by scrupulous examination of the writ of summons, the statement of claim and reliefs claimed no other document should be examined.”
See also First Bank Of Nigeria Plc Vs Government Of Ondo State (2012) 11 NWLR (PT 1312) 502 where this court held that it is a Claimant’s claim as endorsed on the writ of summons and or the statement of claim that determines whether or not a court has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it.”

---

JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT – LIMIT ON THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT IN A BANKER/CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP

---

“The Section provides:-
251 (I) 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 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 other 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 customers and the bank.”
From the above set out provision of the Constitution, it is not in doubt that the intention is to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in matters pertaining to banking, banks and other financial institutions including the Central Bank of Nigeria.
However, the proviso to the said Section 251(I) (d) made it clear also that where there is a dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and the bank, the jurisdictional exclusiveness of the Federal High Court in matters under Subsection (I) (d) will not apply in which case both the Federal High Court and the state High Court can entertain any such Suit.
In other words, where a person whether natural or corporate entity enters into any banking transaction or relationship with a bank and dispute or controversy arises therefrom, any of the aggrieved parties has the option to seek redress in either the Federal High Court or the State High Court. See NDIC VS Okem Enterprise (2004) 10 NWLR (PT 880) 107; NDIC VS Federal Mortgage Bank Of Nigeria. (1992) 2 NWLR (PT 490) 735; Federal Mortgage Bank Of Nigeria VS NDIC (1999) 2 NWLR (PT 591) 33; Afribank Plc vs KCG (Nig) Ltd (2001) 8 NWLR (PT 714) 87; Ndaba (Nig) Ltd vs Union Bank Of Nigeria Plc (2009) 13 NWLR (PT 1158) 256; Ecobank (Nig) Plc Vs Intercontinental Bank Plc (2012) 5 NWLR (PT 1293) 219; 11 TP Ltd Vs Ubn Plc (2006) 12 NWLR (PT 995) 483.
It must further be emphasized that before the proviso to Section 251 (I) (d) can apply it must be shown that there is banker/customer relationship between the individual customer and the bank, whether natural person or a corporate organisation.”

---

BANKER/ CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP– DEFINITION OF BANKER/CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP.

---

“That throws up the issue of the definition of a banker/customer relationship of which the case laws have provided a veritable guide.
Firstly in D Stephens Industries Ltd Vs Bank Of Credit And Commerce (Nig) Ltd (1999) 7 SC (PT III) 27 on (1999) 11 NWLR (PT 625) 29. The Apex court held that:-
“The relationship of banker and customer depends basically on the ordinary principles of contract and it could, at least in theory, be brought to an end in any of the ways a contract may be determined.”
In Allied Bank (Nig) Vs Akubueze (1997) 6 NWLR (PT 509) also reported in (1997) LPERL (429) SC the Supreme Court at page 28 held that:-
“When a banker credits the current account of its customer with some money, the banker becomes a debtor to the customer in that sum. Conversely, when a banker debits the current account of its customer with a certain sum, the customer becomes a debtor to the bank in that sum. Whichever party is a creditor is entitled to sue the other, if demand for payment was made, but not honoured.”
In the case of Intergrated Timber And Plywood Products Ltd Vs Union Bank Of Nigeria Plc (2006) 12 NWLR (PT 995) 483, it was held that where even a bank interested in earning interest deposits money in another bank as a customer in that case, if a dispute arises from such transaction a banker/customer relationship is established.
The legal summation here is that the relationship of a bank customer and a bank is contractual in nature whereby a customer who deposits money with a bank is the creditor and is a vice versa where the bank lends money to a customer.”

---

“REVIEW” – MEANING OF “REVIEW”

---

“ In Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition at page 1434. The word “Review” is stated to mean:-
“Consideration, inspection, or re-examination of a subject or thing.”

---

REPLY BRIEF – WHETHER A REPLY BRIEF IS MEANT TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF ARGUMENT IN THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF

---

“By law where a reply on points of law translates to rearguing a party’s written address or brief of argument it will be discountenanced by the court. That was the stance of the lower court and the holding is within the ambit of the law. See Okpala Vs Ibeme (1989) 2 NWLR (PT 102) 208; FRN Vs Iweka (2011) LPELR (9350) CA; Opene Vs NJC (2011) LPELR (4795) CA.
In UBA Plc Vs Ubokolo (2009) LPELR (8923) CA this court held that a reply brief is not meant to improve the quality of the argument in the Appellant’s brief. In the same way, a reply on point of law is not meant to improve on the quality of a written address.

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999|Court Appeal Rules 2011|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---