CORAM

---

CHUKWUMA-ENEH JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

1. INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED2. MR. ISAAC MOWO

---

SEA MOUNTAIN COMPANY NIGERIA LIMITED

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant/Respondent sued the Defendants/Appellants by writ of summons for breach of contract and recovery of debt, at the High Court of Lagos State. The suit at the lower Court had to do with breach of contract for construction and renovation, entered into at various times in the year 2006. The main contention of the Appellants was that the contracts were entered into in Ilorin outside the territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State hence; the High Court of Lagos State had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. The lower Court held the view that it had jurisdiction and therefore dismissed Defendants/Appellants application seeking to strike out the suit. Being dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellant has filed an appeal before this court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Court below was right when it relied on the provisions of Order 2 Rule 3 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 to determine the jurisdiction of the Court, whereas, the objection raised against the Courts Jurisdiction was territorial in nature, as it was connected to contentions that the subject matter of the suit revolved around construction contracts executed and/or performed in Ilorin Kwara State.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

“JURISDICTION”- MEANING OF “JURISDICTION”

---

“It is trite that jurisdiction is the limit imposed on the power of a validly constituted Court to hear and determine issues between parties seeking to avail themselves of its process by reference to the subject matter, the persons between whom issues are joined or the kind of relief sought. See: Goodwill & Trust Investment Ltd. & Anor vs. Witt & Busch Ltd (2011) 2-3 S.C (pt.1) 176.”

---

JURISDICTION- ASPECTS OF JURISDICTION

---

“In Nweke vs. Udobi, (2001) 5 NWLR (pt. 706) 445, the Court held as follows: “Jurisdiction has two main aspects, territoriality and justifiability of cause. The two aspects must co-exist for a Court to lawfully enquire into a cause. Thus, a cause or matter can only be enquired into by a Court within which territorial jurisdiction the transaction sought to be litigated upon had occurred and the subject matter of the suit to be so tried must be such that can equally be enquired into.”

---

JURISDICTION OF COURT – FACTORS THAT DETERMINES THE APPROPRIATE VENUE OR COURT WITH JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND DETERMINE A DISPUTE ON BREACH OF CONTRACT

---

“From the provisions of Order 2 Rule 3 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, any dispute involving breach of contract as in the instant case, the appropriate venue or Court with jurisdiction to hear and determine the causes and matters relating to contract is determined by the following factors, to wit, (a) where the contract in question was made, (b) where the contract is to be performed, and/or (c) where the defendant resides. This Rule of Court received interpretation in International Niger Building Construction Co. vs. Giwa (2003) 13 NWLR (pt. 836) 69 at 74 where the Court held as follows:
“A cause of action arising within a State is justiciable by the High Court of the State where it arose. In this vein, the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court of a State is conferred by Section 234, 236-239 of the 1979 Constitution. According to the High Court Rules of various States, suits arising from breach of contract may be commenced and determined in the judicial division in which such a contract was entered into or ought to have been performed, or in which the Defendant resides.”

---

BREACH OF CONTRACT – APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR COMMENCING AN AXCTION ON BREACH OF CONTRACT

---

“I am also convinced that the decision reached by the learned trial Judge to assume jurisdiction is concreted on very strong pedestal, especially taking into account the decision of the Supreme Court in Kraus Thompson Org Limited Vs. University Of Calabar (2004) 4 S.C (Pt. 1) 65 at 78-79 where the Supreme Court of Nigeria held as follows and I quote:
“Now by virtue of Order 1A Rule 3 of the High Court Rules of Lagos State 1972, or as amended by virtue of Order 2 Rule 3 of the 1994 Rules, an action upon a breach of contract may be commenced and determined in any of the following three places; namely:
a) Where the contract was made; or
b) where the contract ought to have been performed; or
c) Where the Defendant resides
Thus, a plaintiff suing for breach of contract is entitled to take advantage of any of the alternatives and rely on it to choose the venue convenient for him. In the instant case, the plaintiffs purportedly chose where according to him the Defendant reside-i.e. the Liaison Office in Lagos. See: Okafor V. Ezenwa (2002) 13 NWLR (pt. 794) 319. It is common ground that the contract in the instant case was not made in Lagos and was not to be performed in Lagos. so it is the residence of the Defendant that the Appellant was using in Order to clothe the Lagos State High Court with the jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The settled position of the law is therefore clear that, to determine jurisdiction in matters involving breach of contract, the Court takes into account, where the contract is made, where the contract is to be performed and where the defendant resides. See: Arjay vs. Airline Management Support Ltd (2003) 2 SCNJ 148 at 168.

---

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF A COURT – FACTORS DETERMINING THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF A COURT IN AN ACTION FOUNDED IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT

---

“In law territorial jurisdiction of a Court in an action founded in a breach of contract is properly determined by three key factors each of which is sufficient namely: (a) where the contract ought to have been performed or (b) where the Defendant resides or (c) where the Defendant carries on business. See International Niger Building Construction Co. Ltd. V. Giwa (2003) 13 NWLR (PT. 836) 69 @ P. 74. See also Kraus Thompson Organization Limited v. University of Calabar (2004) 4 SC (pt. 1) 65 @ PP. 78-79, Arjay v. Airline Management Support Ltd. (2003) 2 SCNJ 148 @ P. 168”.

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---