Legalpedia Citation: (2024-03) Legalpedia 36107 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden At ABUJA

Thu Mar 14, 2024

Suit Number: CA/A/990/2018

CORAM

Joseph Olubunmi Kayode Oyewole Justice

Abba Bello Mohammed Justice

Okon Efreti Abang Justice

PARTIES

ZENITH BANK PLC

APPELLANTS

1. ALON NELKEN
2. HADASSA INVESTMENT SECURITY NIGERIA LIMITED
3. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, BANKING, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CONTRACT, EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Following the intervention of the 3rd Respondent in what the 1st and 2nd Respondents believed was a civil debt incurred in the course of banker customer relationship between them and the Appellant, the 1st and 2nd Respondents approached the lower Court with an originating application filed on the 4th April, 2018 for the enforcement of their fundamental rights wherein they sought a declaration that the subject matter of dispute and all arising rights and liabilities between the Applicant’s Company (Hadassa Investment Security Nig. Ltd) and Zenith Bank Plc are merely civil and contractual in nature. They equally sought a declaration that the continuous interventions by the 2nd Respondent, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is illegal and ultra vires of its statutory duties and powers and an order directing the Respondents and all other law enforcements and investigative agencies (including but not limited to the Nigerian Police, the Department of State Services) to desist from calling, arresting, detaining, or inviting the Applicants in any matter relating to this contractual dispute. There was a counter claim.

The Lower Court (High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja) gave judgment in favour of the Applicants.

Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellants herein filed the instant appeal. The Respondents also cross appealed aspects of the judgment they were dissatisfied with.

HELD

Appeal allowed

Cross-Appeal struck out

ISSUES

1. Whether this suit was properly commenced under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules and whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to determine same when the complaint and reliefs sought or the principal relief sought by the 1st and 2nd Respondents did not relate to breach or enforcement of fundamental right?
2. Whether the learned trial Judge did not by his decision, contravene the settled principle of law contained in the various decisions of this Honourable Court and the Supreme Court when he treated this matter as one amounting to infringement of fundamental rights simply because of the 1st and 2nd Respondents were invited by the 3rd Respondent on the petition of the Appellant?
3. Whether the trial Court did not misconceive the provisions of the Central Bank of Nigeria (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism in Banks and other Financial Institutions in Nigeria) Regulation 2013 and other relevant laws vis-à-vis the law and practice relating to enforcement of fundamental rights, thereby wrongly holding the Appellant jointly and severally liable for the alleged breach of fundamental right of the 1st Respondent?
4. Whether the award of the sum of N500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) by the learned trial Judge as ‘compensation’ for the alleged breach of the 1st Respondent’s fundamental right was not unreasonable, unwarranted and a wrongful exercise of discretion by the trial Court?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

JURISDICTION – THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION IN ADJUDICATION – THE MEANING OF JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is the bedrock of the exercise of judicial power as any exercise of judicial powers without the requisite jurisdiction is null and void and incapable of conferring any legal benefit. See OSADEBAY VS AG BENDEL STATE (1991) LPELR-2781(SC), ABACHA VS FRN (2014) LPELR-22014(SC), SEPTA ENERGY (NIG) LTD VS USUNGURUA & ORS (2016) LPELR-41416 (CA) and BRONIK MOTORS LTD &ANOR VS WEMA BANK LTD (1983) LPELR-808(SC) at 62-63 where IDIGBE, JSC stated thus:

“I find myself, however, in agreement with the submissions in reply of learned counsel for the respondent that “although the terms ‘judicial power’ and ‘jurisdiction’ are frequently used interchangeably and jurisdiction is defined as the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between parties to a suit” there is a clear distinction between the two concepts; and that “jurisdiction is the authority of a Court to exercise judicial power which is the totality of powers a Court exercises when it assumes jurisdiction and hears a case” [Italics by me]. Judicial Power, as is well known, is, indeed, a very wide expression; for apart from its meaning as the power which very sovereign authority must of necessity possess to enable it settle and decide controversies between its subjects and also between its subjects and itself [see Griffith C.J. in Huddart, Parker. – Per J. O. K. Oyewole, JCA

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – WHEN AN APPLICANT SEEKS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED IN CHAPTER FOUR OF THE CONSTITUTION

It is settled law that for a Court to be deemed competent to adjudicate on any matter, it must answer the radical question of jurisdiction. The 1st and 2nd Respondents approached the trial Court under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules. When an Applicant seeks the enforcement of his fundamental rights it is essential that his main relief should be the enforcement of one of the rights guaranteed in Chapter Four of the Constitution. The enforcement of his fundamental rights must not be ancillary but must rather be the main relief and it must be anchored specifically on any of the specific rights stipulated as earlier stated, in Chapter Four of the Constitution. Where the main cause of action is not rooted in any of the rights secured in Chapter Four of the Constitution, jurisdiction cannot be properly exercised. See TUKUR VS GOVERNMENT OF TARABA STATE & ORS (1997) LPELR-3273(SC), GTB VS. ADEDAMOLA & ORS (2019) LPELR-47310(CA) at 17-19, GOVERNOR OF KOGI STATE VS YAKUBU (2001) 3 S.C. 66, TUKUR VS GOVT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 9 S.C. 1 and UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN VS OLUWADARE (2006) 6-7 S, C. 154 at 163. – Per J. O. K. Oyewole, JCA

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – WHERE AN ACTION IS BROUGHT UNDER THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PROCEDURE RULES

It is settled law that for an action to be brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement) Procedure Rules, 2009 it must relate to infringement of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). See: EMEKA v OKOROAFOR & ORS (2017) LPELR-41738(SC) at 78 – 79. paras. B – E: and HUMAN RIGHTS & EMPOWERMENT PROJECT LTD/GTE v PRESIDENT, FRN & ORS (2022) LPELR-58230(CA) at 53 – 54, paras. E – C. – Per A. B. Mohammed, JCA

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Central Bank of Nigeria (Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism in Banks and other Financial Institutions in Nigeria) Regulation 2013
3. Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules
   

   CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT