PRINCE ABDUL RASHEED ADESUPO ADETONA & 2 ORS V. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD.

CORAM

ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR JSC

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI JSC

IBRAHIM TANKO MUHAMMAD JSC

MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAHI MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE JSC

SULEIMAN GALADIMA JSC

PARTIES

1. PRINCE ABDUL RASHEED ADESUPO ADETONA

2. TOKI DABUR PRODUCTIONS LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP)

3. EKO INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC.

APPELLANTS

IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD.

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, JURISDICTION, COMPANIES AND ALLIED MATTERS ACT, RECEIVERSHIP, TORT, LANDLORD AND TENANT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The case arose from a dispute over the actions of a Receiver/Manager. The 1st Appellant was appointed as Receiver/Manager of the 2nd Appellant (Toki Dabur Productions Ltd) by the 3rd Appellant (Eko International Bank PLC) in June 2000. On December 7, 2000, the 1st Appellant, in purported exercise of his duties, broke into and locked up premises at 27A Fatai Atere Way, Matori Mushin, Lagos, which housed the Respondent’s office and warehouse. The Respondent, who was a tenant in the premises, was denied access to its office and warehouse where chemicals and other properties worth millions of naira were kept until April 6, 2001, despite efforts to regain access. The Respondent sued for N20 million in damages. The Appellants filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Lagos State High Court, arguing that since the matter arose from the exercise of powers of a Receiver/Manager under CAMA, only the Federal High Court had jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the objection, and the Court of Appeal affirmed this decision.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The High Court of Lagos State has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. The claims were based on tort and landlord-tenant relationship, not the operation of CAMA.

4. Each party to bear their own costs.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right in its decision that the High Court of Lagos State has jurisdiction to entertain the suit instituted by the Respondent ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION – EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM

“It is well settled that where there is no jurisdiction to hear and determine a cause or matter, everything done in such want of jurisdiction is a nullity.” – Per Suleiman Galadima, JSC

DETERMINATION OF COURT’S JURISDICTION – IMPORTANCE OF EXAMINING WRIT AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM

“It is trite law that in considering whether or not a court has jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of a suit the writ of summons and Statement of Claim must be perused carefully in order to determine which court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.” – Per Suleiman Galadima, JSC

POWERS OF RECEIVER/MANAGER – LIMITATIONS ON EXERCISE OF POWER

“The provision of CAMA referred to does not empower the Receiver/manager to arbitrarily lock up the premises of other persons or detain their properties in the purported exercise of his power.” – Per Suleiman Galadima, JSC

FEDERAL HIGH COURT JURISDICTION – SCOPE IN RECEIVERSHIP MATTERS

“The Respondent seems to be suggesting that the Federal High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any matter involving a Receiver/Manager or that the mere mention of his name in a claim makes it a proper one for the Federal High Court to have jurisdiction to entertain.” – Per Suleiman Galadima, JSC

JURISDICTION IN TORTIOUS CLAIMS – DISTINCTION FROM RECEIVERSHIP MATTERS

“The Respondent’s action is one of tort for detinue unlawful interference with business and trespass which a state High Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution.” – Per Suleiman Galadima, JSC

LANDLORD-TENANT DISPUTES – JURISDICTION OF STATE HIGH COURT

“Quite clearly a careful study of the above averments in the statement of claim and the writ of summons reveal that it is not a matter arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act Cap 20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, but the claim was based on an action that arose as a result of the relationship of the 2nd appellant and his landlord.” – Per Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, JSC

CONCURRENT FINDINGS ON JURISDICTION – APPELLATE COURT’S APPROACH

“Apart from the fact that the appeal is filed against concurrent decisions of the two lower courts, which are rarely disturbed, the law still remains valid on jurisdiction that it is the claim of the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of a court.” – Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC

JURISDICTION OF STATE HIGH COURT – SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

“On subject matter jurisdiction, the High Court of a State, by the provision of Section 236 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, enjoys unlimited jurisdiction.” – Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC

EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION – FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S SCOPE

“The Federal High Court has limited jurisdiction or jurisdiction on some enumerated subject matters.” – Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC

CONCURRENT JURISDICTION – BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE HIGH COURTS

“There are areas where both the Federal High Court and High Court of a State enjoys concurrent jurisdiction. Example of such is the enforcement of Fundamental Human Rights conferred in Chapter IV of the Constitution.” – Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION – TIMING AND PROCEDURE

“It is however ideal that it be raised at the earliest stage of proceedings to avoid unnecessary waste of time, which the defendant has done in the instant case.” – Per Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, JSC

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION – DISTINCTION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS

“On territorial jurisdiction, the Federal High Court enjoys nationwide jurisdiction whereas a State High Court is confined to the territory of the State.” – Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC

JURISDICTION OVER PERSONS – SCOPE OF COURT’S AUTHORITY

“A State High Court has jurisdiction mostly over natural persons. Federal High Court has jurisdiction over both natural and artificial persons.” – Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, JSC