CORAM

---

Onyekachi Aja Otisi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1. MRS. ELIZABETH OJEDOKUN 2. VICTORIA OJEDOKUN 3. CHRISTIANA OJEDOKUN 4. AJIBOLA OJEDOKU 5. LIDYA OJEDOKUN 6. PAUL OJEDOKUN (4th-6th Appellants Being Infants Suing By Mrs. Elizabeth Ojedokun, Their Next Friend)

APPELLANTS 

---

HERITAGE BANK LIMITED

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, COURT, LAW OF BANKING

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Mr. Zacheaus Ojedokun, the husband of the 1st Appellant and father of the 2nd–6th Appellants, died intestate in the ill-fated Kenya Airways plane crash off the coast of Cote d’Ivoire on 30/01/2000. Kenya Airways, vide a letter addressed jointly to the 1st Appellant and one Mr. Timothy Ojedokun, the younger brother of the late Mr. Zacheaus Ojedokun, forwarded a Co-operative Development Bank Plc, Banker’s Cheque (written in the joint names of the 1st Appellant and Mr. Timothy Ojedokun) for the sum of N11, 664,000.00 (Eleven Million Six Hundred and Sixty-Four Thousand Naira Only), as the balance of compensation for the death of Mr. Zacheaus Ojedokun, after deduction of legal charges. The  duo had earlier applied for and obtained Letters of Administration to enable them administer the Estate of the deceased. A dispute arose between the 1st Appellant and Mr. Timothy Ojedokun on the disparity in the amount proposed to be shared to the deceased’s parents, siblings and the Appellants, hence the 1st Appellant, through her Solicitor, wrote a letter to the Co-operative Development Bank requesting that no payment into any account or encashment of the said cheque be made without due notification from her. The Bank by a letter, informed the 1st Appellant that Mr. Timothy Ojedokun has paid the Banker’s cheque in question into a Bank Account No. 302877603 with Account name: “Ojedokun Olawale & Elizabeth with the Respondent and the proceeds was cashed out, without the knowledge, consent or instruction of the 1st Appellant. The Appellants instituted an action against Timothy Ojedokun and the Respondent before the Lagos State High Court, claiming the payment of the sums on the cheque and other declaratory reliefs, but discontinued the suit against the Respondent on the ground that the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit against the Respondent. That same date, judgment was entered against Timothy Ojedokun for the sum of N2, 000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) admitted by him. It was the case of the Appellants at the lower Court that the encashment and/or clearance of the Banker’s cheque was facilitated by the negligence of the Respondent and breach of duty by the Respondent, hence the Appellants’ claim against the Respondent for the payment of the sum of N11,664,000.00 and pre and post-judgment interest thereon. The Appellants’ action was struck out for want of jurisdiction. Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court striking out their action, the Appellants appealed against it vide a Notice of Appeal with a sole ground of appeal.

 

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned presiding Judge in the Court below was right in concluding that the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO BANKING AND BANKS

---

 

“The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is circumscribed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). There are eighteen (18) civil matters over which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction, to the exclusion of any other Court, and those civil matters or causes are enumerated as (a) – (s) under Section 251 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered). For our purpose in this judgment, we shall limit ourselves to the matters enumerated under paragraph (d) of Section 251 (1). The said Section provides:

“251 (1). 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 the 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 another, 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 customer and the bank.”

By dint of the above quoted provisions, all civil causes and matters that are connected with or pertaining to banking and banks generally, other than causes and matters arising out of dispute between individual bank customers and their banks, falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court”. -PER M. I. SIRAJO, J.C.A

 

 

---

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – EXTENT OF THE EXCLUSIVITY OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO BANKING BUSINESS

---

 

“The dispute that arose in this case on appeal whose origin is the Banker’s cheque lodged in an account opened for that purpose with the Respondent, is a dispute that concerns the due operation of banking business by the Respondent and it is undoubtedly connected with or pertaining to banking and banks as it is interrelated with banking. Not being customers of the Respondent, however, the case of the Appellants falls outside the proviso to Section 251 (1) (d) of the Constitution, which would have entitled them to file the action at the State High Court. The Federal High Court is the only sanctuary for the Appellants to ventilate their grievances in view of the absence of banking relationship between them and the Respondent. In S.B.N. Ltd vs. De Lluch (2004) LPELR-2968 (SC), Pats-Acholonu, JSC, held the view that:

“Section 251 (1) (d) in its tenor and intendment embraces all possible conceivable matters touching on banking whether on issue of tort or contract but not being a point on bank and customer relationship.”

On the basis of this statement of the law by the Apex Court, I am in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the Appellants that an action in negligence which is connected with or pertaining to banking business but which does not involve dispute between a customer and a bank, falls squarely under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Whether a dispute arises from the tort of negligence, detinue or conversion, so long as the facts leading to the tort are connected with or pertaining to banking and banks, and the aggrieved person is not a customer of the bank, the appropriate Court with jurisdiction to entertain such dispute is the Federal High Court. What matters the most is that the facts/dispute must have affinity/relationship with banking generally, exclusive of banker-customer relationship”. -PER M. I. SIRAJO, J.C.A

 

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Banks and other Financial Institutions, Act, 1991

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

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT