CORAM

---

Mohammed Lawal Garba -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Tijjani Abubakar- Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jummai Hannatu Sankey -Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Jamilu Yammama Tukur-Justice of supreme court

---

PARTIES

---

HARUNA S. USMAN

APPELLANTS 

---

 NIGERIAN UNITY LINE PLC

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, JURISDICTION, CONTRACT LAW, LEGAL PRACTICE, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, APPELLATE PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant, Haruna S. Usman, approached the Federal High Court, Kaduna Judicial Division via a Motion Ex-parte dated January 23, 2006, seeking to sue the Respondent (Nigerian Unity Line PLC) under the undefended list. The Appellant claimed the sum of $2,663,720 or its Naira equivalent of 172,833.60, being legal fees for services rendered to the Respondent to secure the release of the Respondent’s Vessel MV Abuja, which was under arrest in Colombo, Sri Lanka, as well as estacode allowance, and 10% interest from the date of judgment until the entire sum is liquidated.

The trial Court granted the Appellant leave to file the suit under the undefended list on February 2, 2006. After service of processes, the Respondent failed to file a notice of intention to defend pursuant to Order 24 Rule 3(1) of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules. Consequently, the trial Court entered judgment in favor of the Appellant as claimed.

Dissatisfied, the Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter, declaring the whole proceedings a nullity and setting aside the decision of the trial Court. The Appellant, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1.The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.

2.The judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on May 7, 2013, in Appeal No. CA/K/261/2097 was affirmed.

3.The Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain claims for debt arising from a simple contract, as the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the State High Court.

4.The Court of Appeal correctly declined to transfer the case to the appropriate Court because it cannot make orders which the Court of first instance itself had no jurisdiction to make.

5.Parties were ordered to bear their respective costs.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether, having regard to the Constitutional provisions of Section 251(1)(p), (q) and (r) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s case.?

2.Whether, if the trial Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellant’s suit, the Court of Appeal was right in refusing and/or failing to transfer the suit to the appropriate Court for determination.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT – SIMPLE CONTRACT CLAIMS:

---

“Without any scintilla of doubt, the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court does not involve matters falling within simple contract, Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provided for the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court did not envisage matters relating to or pertaining to simple contract coming under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.” – Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

 

---

ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT ON FEDERAL HIGH COURT JURISDICTION – DEBT RECOVERY FROM SIMPLE CONTRACT:

---

“‘the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain claims for debt arising from a simple contract. In the instant case, the appellant’s claim has nothing to do with administration or the management and control of the University of Nigeria, an agent of the Federal Government. It was a claim for debt arising from a simple contract.'” – Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

 

---

RECOVERY OF LEGAL FEES – APPROPRIATE FORUM:

---

“It is an uncontested fact that the subject matter of the suit is for recovery of legal fees. It is also not contested that Section 16(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act confers jurisdiction on the State High Court on matters of recovery of legal fees.” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION – NULLITY OF PROCEEDINGS:

---

“Jurisdiction is a threshold issue and once a Court is adjudged to lack jurisdiction, the proceeding is declared a nullity no matter how well or beautifully conducted. It is also a well settled principle of law that a Court can only act when it has jurisdiction. Any order made or action taken in the absence of jurisdiction will render such an order or step null and void.” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

LIMITATIONS OF APPELLATE COURT’S POWER TO TRANSFER CASES:

---

“The law is settled on an infantry of judicial decisions that in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, the Court of Appeal can only make orders which the Court of first instance ought to have made legally but failed. In other words, the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to make an order for the transfer of the case to the appropriate Court since the Federal High Court itself acted without jurisdiction.” – Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

 

---

STATUS OF RESPONDENT – NOT A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY:

---

“By the Appellant’s own admission in paragraph 2 of his affidavit in support of the writ of the undefended list contained at page 28 of the printed records of appeal, the Respondent is a public limited liability company (PLC), and not an agency of the Federal Government, therefore the trial Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to have adjudicated on the suit.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

 

---

SCOPE OF SUPREME COURT’S POWERS – SECTION 22 OF SUPREME COURT ACT:

---

“I must point out that under Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act (now also contained at Order 7, Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024) this Court has power to evaluate evidence which a trial Court failed to consider and make correct findings which the trial Court failed to make. It also has the power to make order which the Court below ought to have made but failed to do. This Court, however, has no jurisdiction to correct mistakes of counsel or assist counsel to prove his case.” – Per CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.S.C.

 

---

DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION – NATURE OF CLAIM:

---

“The Respondent contended that the suit before the trial Court was for recovery of outstanding professional fees against a public limited company, therefore the trial Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” – Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

 

---

FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S LACK OF JURISDICTION – ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY COUNSEL:

---

“‘…it is agreed that the submission of the learned silk for the Appellant that the Federal High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain any matter bordering on a simple contract is correct. It is the State High Court that has jurisdiction to entertain the Respondents claim in the circumstance.'” – Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

 

---

ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT ON JURISDICTION – SIMPLE CONTRACT MATTERS:

---

“In the instant appeal, it is on record that the subject matter of the suit is for the payment for services rendered to secure the release of the Respondent’s vessel MV Abuja which was under arrest in Colombo, Sri Lanka. I have no doubt at all from the claim before the trial Court that it is a simple contract, the issue has long been settled that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction in matters involving simple contract, it is the State High Court that has jurisdiction to hear and determine such claims.” – Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

 

---

TRANSFER OF CASES – LIMITATIONS OF COURT’S POWERS:

---

“I am therefore in full agreement with the lower Court that the order of transfer sought to be made by the Appellant is outside the jurisdiction of the lower Court since the trial Court had no jurisdiction.” – Per TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.S.C.

 

---

CONSISTENT JURISPRUDENCE ON FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S JURISDICTION:

---

“Apparently, the subject matter of the suit is one of simple contract for which the Federal High Court has been adjudged to be bereft of jurisdiction to entertain. See Anazodo V Pazmeck Intertrade (Nig) Ltd. (2023) LPELR- 59879(SC), Bank of Industry Ltd. V Obeya (2021) LPELR- 56881 (SC).” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

IMPROPRIETY OF INVOKING TRANSFER POWERS – ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION:

---

“The contention of the Appellant urging the Court below to exercise the powers conferred on it by Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, cannot be invoked where the Court below lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same. Put in other words, the Court below by Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act can only make orders which the Court of first instance can legally make. In this case, the Federal High Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit this is why the Court below rightfully declined jurisdiction in making the order of transfer.” – Per JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

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

• High Court Act, 2004

• Court of Appeal Act, 2004

• Supreme Court Act, 2004

• Legal Practitioners Act

• Supreme Court Rules, 2024

• Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT