JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC -SC/234/2016

SC/234/2016

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY  UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC

   I have read in advance the judgment of my learned brother, Stephen Jonah Adah, JSC, just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that the Appellant’s appeal has merit to be allowed.

This appeal is an offshoot of the strained banker-customer relationship between the Appellants and the Respondents arising from a loan transaction. As reflected in the record, the Appellants challenge the jurisdiction of the Delta State High Court to entertain the suit alleging that the Respondents were in receivership; hence it is the Federal High Court that ought to entertain the same. The concurrent findings of the 2 courts below affirm that it is the State High Court that has jurisdiction over breach of contract predicated upon banker-customer relationship, hence this appeal.

  It is no doubt that the loan agreement between the Appellants and Respondents is a simple contract, which only the High Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain. This hinged and encompassed reliefs 1,2,3,5,7,8,9 and 10 sought by the Respondents.

However, reliefs 4,6, and 11, out of the 11 reliefs are based and predicated on the appointment of receivership. In fact, when the writ was issued on 23/6/2008, First Bank of Nigeria Plc, being the 1st Appellant, had appointed a Receiver/ Manager. This invariably had severed the banker-customer relationship between the parties to that of receivership, bringing into play and application the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act ( CAMA), exclusively a matter for the Federal High Court as expressly provided in section 251(1)(e) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

    Where therefore there are mixed reliefs, the court with the competent jurisdiction to handle all should rather be used and not otherwise as in this case. Where ancillary or incidental or accessory claim or claims are so inextricably tied to or bound up with the main claims before the court in a suit, a court cannot adjudicate over them where it has no jurisdiction to entertain the main claims if such incidental or ancillary claims cannot be determined without a determination of such incidental or ancillary claims must necessarily involve a consideration or determination of the main claims. See Per MOHAMMED, JSC, in GAFAR V. GOVT OF KWARA STATE & ORS (2007) LPELR-8073(SC) (PP. 22 PARAS. A). Since the Federal High Court can jurisdictionally handle all the reliefs of the Respondents, it is safer and better to approach it.

The appeal has merit and is hereby allowed. Parties are to bear their costs.

UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

APPEARANCES:

JIM OKODASO,ESQ, WITH UVIE ORU, ESQ, FOR THE APPELLANTS.

ONOME EGBON, ESQ, FOR THE RESPONDENTS.