AREAS OF LAW: COMPANY LAW, RECEIVER AND MANAGER. JURISDICTION

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

The Plaintiffs now Respondents at the High Court of Justice Effurun Delta State took out a writ of summons dated 23/6/2008 and filed the same date against the Defendants/Appellants. They also filed motion ex-parte, motion on notice, with an affidavit. The Lower Court heard the motion and ordered an interim injunction to restrained the Defendants/ Appellants from (1) taking any step for the recovery disputed loan.   (2) Restraining the 2nd Defendant/Appellant from taking over managing, receiving, disposing /selling anything in respect of Plaintiffs/Respondents properties pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice. The Defendants/Appellants at this stage entered a conditional appearance and responded by filing a motion on notice, which was supported by a 22 paragraphs affidavit praying the Lower Court for an extension of time to apply for an order of interim injunction and /or striking out the suit, on the ground that the Lower Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.   At the ruling the Lower Court dismissed the Defendants /Appellants objection. Dissatisfied with the ruling Defendants/ Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD:

Appeal succeeds in part.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

• Whether in the circumstance of this case, the plaintiff’s processes and/or materials before the trial court at the stage the objection was raised were sufficient for the trial court to determine if it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the plaintiffs’ claim
• Whether the plaintiff’s claim as endorsed on the writ of summons renders the trial court so incompetent so as to be unable to hear and determine the claim

 

RATIONES:

JURISDICTION OF COURT-JURISDICTION IS THE BLOOD THAT GIVES LIFE TO ANY ACTION

Jurisdiction is blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a court of law and without jurisdiction, the action will be like an animal that has been drained of its blood. It will cease to have life, any attempt to resuscitate it without infusing blood into it would be an abortive exercise. PER OLUKAYODE BADA JCA

 

HOW JURISDICTION OF COURT IS DERIVED – JURISDICTION OF COURT IS DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, 1999 (AS AMENDED).

Jurisdiction of courts in this country (Nigeria) is derived from the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). Therefore, where the Constitution has declared that courts cannot exercise jurisdiction, any provision in any law to the contrary will be inconsistent with the provision of the Constitution and void. PER OLUKAYODE BADA JCA

 

HOW JURISDICTION IS DETERMINED – PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM DETERMINES OR CONFERS JURISDICTION ON THE COURT

It is settled law that it is the plaintiffs’ claim that determines or confers jurisdiction on the court. See – Adeyemi v. Opeyori (Supra), Kwara State v. Warah (1995) 7 NWLR Part 405. PER OLUKAYODE BADA JCA

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE HIGH COURTS IN COMPANIES MATTERS : THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S JURISDICTION IN COMPANIES MATTERS IS LIMITED TO PROVISIONS OF CAMA WHILE OTHER COMPANIES MATTERS ARE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE HIGH COURTS

By virtue of Section 251 (1) (e) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the 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 cases and matters arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act or any other enactment replacing that Act or regulating operation of companies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act. It is manifest from the foregoing provisions that jurisdiction will only vest in the Federal High Court if the suit involves civil cause or matter arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act or any other Act replacing that Act or regulating the operation of companies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act. The implication is that in an action involving regulating, running or management or control of companies, the Federal High Court would be vested with jurisdiction. On the other hand, where the dispute does not involve the control or administration of a company and deals with the ordinary routine business of a company, a State High Court, and not the Federal High Court, has jurisdiction to entertain and determine the matter. In other words, any matter that can be decided without recourse to either the Companies and Allied Matters Act; or any other enactment regulating the operation of companies under the said Act belong to a State High Court. See the following cases: – F.M.B.N. v. NDIC (1999) 2 NWLR part 591 page 233. Ali v. CBN (1997) 4 NWLR part 498 page 192. NIDB v. Fembo Nig Ltd (1997) 2 NWLR part 489 page 543.Bi Zee Bee Hotels Ltd v. Allied Bank of Nigeria Ltd (1996) 8 NWLR part 465 page 176.7Up Bottling Company Ltd v. Abiola & Sons Bottling Co. Ltd (1996) 7 NWLR part 463 page 714. PER OLUKAYODE BADA JCA

OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF COURT – AN OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF COURT COULD BE RAISED AT ANY TIME OF THE PROCEEDINGS

To say that objection to jurisdiction should only be taken after the statement of claim has been filed is a misconception. It depends on what materials are available. It could be taken on the basis of the statement of claim. See – Adeyemi v. Opeyori     (Supra), Kashikwu Farms Ltd v. Attorney-General of Bendel State     (1986) 1 NWLR part 19 page 695. It could be taken on the basis of the evidence received. See – Barclays Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. Central Bank of Nigeria     (1976) 1 AII NLR page 409; or by a motion supported by an affidavit giving the full facts upon which reliance is placed. See – National Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. Shoyoye   (1977) 5 SC 181 at 194 per Obaseki JSC. But certainly, it could be taken on the face of the writ of summons where appropriate. See – Attorney-General of Kwara State v. Olawale     (1993) 1 NWLR part 272 page 645 at 674 – 675 where Karibi-Whyte JSC observed: –

“There is no doubt the issue of whether a plaintiff’s action is properly within jurisdiction or indeed justiciable can be determined even on the endorsement of the writ of summons, as to the capacity in which action was being brought or against who action is brought. It may also be determined on the subject matter endorsed on the Writ of Summons, if this is not actionable.” PER OLUKAYODE BADA JCA

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT (FHC)- BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 251 (1) OF THE 1999 CFRN (AS AMENDED) THE JURISDICTION OF THE FHC DOES NOT INCLUDE CIVIL CAUSES OR MATTERS FOUNDED ON CONTRACT OR DAMAGES.

“It must be emphasized that the jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court is explicit under Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). The jurisdiction does not include civil causes or matters founded on contract or damages for tort or negligence. Items listed under Section 251 (1) can only be determined exclusively by the Federal High Court. All other items not included in the list would therefore still be within the jurisdiction of the State High Court.”- PER OLUKAYODE BADA JCA

 

STATUTES REFERRED TO:

1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)