IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA      HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.       CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.      STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.     ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.           JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA  HAJIA UMMA MUKTAR AHMED MOHAMMED.        AND NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.           APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/958/2015 JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JSC This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Judicial Division (lower Court), delivered on 10th June, 2015. The judgment affirmed the decision of the Federal High Court, Kaduna Judicial Division (trial Court) which inured in favor of the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, this appeal challenged the judgment of the lower court. FACTSBy an Amended Statement of Claim dated 19th September 2003, the Respondent as the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants jointly and severally the sum of N14, 795, 399. 71k being the balance outstanding on the overdraft facilities granted to the 1st Defendant, interest, and other bank charges due from the 1st Defendant to the Commercial Trust Bank Limited at closure on 16th January 1998, and interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 17th January 1998 till Judgment and final liquidation of the debt. The action was commenced at the Federal High Court, Lagos but subsequently transferred to the Federal High Court, Kaduna for determination. It was the Respondent’s grouse that in the exercise of its statutory duties as the liquidator of the defunct Commercial Trust Bank Limited (“the bank” or “the failed bank”), it discovered the indebtedness of Credit and Finance Limited (“the Company”) to the bank to the tune of N14, 795, 399, 71k (Fourteen Million, Seven Hundred and Ninety-five Thousand, Three hundred and Ninety-nine Naira and seventy-one kobo). According to the Respondent, a credit facility had been granted by the failed bank to the Company and same had remained unpaid. The Respondent alleged that the credit facility granted to the Company was approved by the bank due to the involvement of Alhaji Muktar Ahmed Muhammed (“Appellant’s husband or Chairman of the failed Bank”) in his capacity as the Chairman of the Bank. The Respondent thereafter wrote a series of letters to the Appellant’s husband for the settlement of the indebtedness to no avail.   Consequent upon the foregoing, the Respondent took out a Writ of Summons seeking jointly and severally against Credit and Finance Limited and Appellant’s husband, the payment of the outstanding sum on the overdraft facilities granted to the Company.  After hearing the parties, the trial court in its judgment delivered on 2nd May 2006, found in favour of the Respondent and granted all the reliefs sought by the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant’s husband appealed to the lower Court. In the Judgment delivered on 10th June 2015, the lower court agreed with the decision of the trial Court to a substantial extent. The interest rate on the outstanding sum was reviewed by the lower court from 21% per annum as awarded by the trial court to 18% per annum.  Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the lower Court, an appeal was commenced to upturn the Judgment of the lower court. The Notice of Appeal dated 4th September 2015 was replaced by an Amended Notice of Appeal filed on the 19th April 2022. The name of the Appellant’s husband was also substituted with the Appellant in the Amended Notice of Appeal. In the Amended Notice of Appeal, the Appellant raised 8 grounds of appeal and distilled 5 issues for determination therefrom. These issues are contained in the Appellant’s Amended Brief of Argument, which is dated 14th April 2022 and settled by Ibrahim Gamdeh Adamu, Esq. The Respondent, in its Brief of Argument dated 18th October 2023 and settled by Mustapha I. Abubakar, Esq., equally raised 5 issues for determination in this appeal. The Appellant subsequently filed a Reply to the Respondent’s Brief dated 26th February, 2024. As stated afore, Appellant’s counsel formulated five issues for the determination of this appeal, to wit Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal and affirming the Judgment of the trial Court holding that the participation of the Appellant at the trial amounted to a waiver of violation of a statutory requirement of Section 97 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act? Whether Section 40 of the Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation Act 1990 and the Failed Bank (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractice in Banks 1994 has a retroactive effect to empower the Respondent with the locus standi to sue and recover debts from transactions entered into In 1988. Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court can uphold the concurrent findings of fact that the Appellant guaranteed The loan given to the 1st Defendant, and therefore liable for its repayment. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that there was a valid and enforceable agreement between the 1st Defendant and the Bank in respect of the N2.5 million given to the 1st Defendant when at the time of disbursement the 1st Defendant was not a customer of the Bank. Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it awarded interest on the money given to the 1st Defendant, after it has merely stated that it claims a rate of interest of 21% without specifically pleading the rate and proving the same.” On his part, Respondent’s counsel adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant, save for issue No. 2, which was reformulated thus: “Whether the lower Court was right in holding that the Respondent had locus standi to Institute the suit for the recovery of debt in issue in this suit and in relying on the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA      HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.       CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.      STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.     ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.           JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA  HAJIA UMMA MUKTAR AHMED MOHAMMED.        AND NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.           APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/958/2015 JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC  I have read the judgement of my learned brother Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC and I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that this appeal is devoid of merit and should be dismissed. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division Coram: Abdu Aboki, Hebeeb A.O. Abiru, and Aminu A. Wambai JJCA delivered on the 10th day of June 2015, wherein the Court below allowed the appeal in part by affirming the decision of the Federal High Court in the following terms: 2. a) The decision of the lower Court entering judgment in favor of the Respondent against the first Defendant and the Appellant is affirmed to the extent that the interest payable on the principal sum of 2.7 million Naira is 18% per annum from 5th January 1989 to 16th January 1998. b) The 21% interest per annum from 17th January, 1998 till judgment and final liquidation of the debt, part of the reliefs granted by the lower Court is hereby set aside. The facts that led to this appeal are as follows:  By an amended Statement of Claim dated 19 September 2003, the Respondent who was the Plaintiff at the trial Court instituted an action at the Federal High Court, Kaduna for the claim of the sum of N14, 795,399.71 against the Defendants ( Credit and Finance Limited, a subsidiary of Commercial Trust Bank Limited as the 1st Defendant and Alhaji Muktar Ahmed Mohammed (now deceased) as the 2nd defendant) jointly and severally on the balance outstanding on the overdraft facilities granted to the first defendant, interest and other bank charges due to Commercial Trust Bank Limited at closure on 16th January 1998 and at the interest rate of 21% per annum from 17th January 1998 till judgement and final liquidation of the debt. The Respondent claimed that in discharging its statutory duties as the liquidator of the defunct Commercial Trust Bank Limited, it discovered that a credit facility had been granted by the failed bank to the first defendant at trial and same had remained unpaid. The Respondent proved that the credit facility granted to the first defendant at trial was approved by Commercial Trust Bank Ltd. as a result of the involvement of the involvement of Alhaji Muktar Ahmed Muhammed who was also the Chairman of same. At the end of trial, the trial court on 2 May 2006 delivered its judgment in favor of the Respondent and granted all the reliefs sought. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant’s husband appealed against the decision of the trial Court and the court below on 10 June 2015 affirmed the decision of the trial Court to the extent of reviewing the interest rate on the outstanding sum from 21% per annum as awarded by the trial court to 18% per annum. The present Appellant is the widow of the original Defendant, and she is also the administrator of his estate.  Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court below, the Appellant vide an amended Notice of Appeal, wherein the Appellant was substituted in place of her husband, has appealed to this Court on eight (8) grounds of appeal, seeking the following reliefs: a) That the appeal be allowed. b) That the judgments of the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division delivered on 10th June, 2015 in Appeal No: CA/K/36/2008 and the Federal High Court’s delivered in Kaduna on 2nd May 2006 in Suit No: FHC/KD/CS/87/2000 be set aside. c) That the Respondent’s claim against the Appellant in Suit No: FHC/KD)CS/87/2000 be dismissed. The Appellant, in a brief of argument settled by Ibrahim Gamdeh Adamu, Esq., formulated five (5) issues for determination to wit: a) Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal and affirming the judgment of the trial Court holding that the participation of the Appellant at the trial amounted to a waiver of violation of a statutory and mandatory requirement of Section 97 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act ( Distilled from ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal). b) Whether Section 40 of the Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation Act 1990 and the Failed Bank (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractice in Banks 1994 have retroactive effect so as to empower the Respondent with the locus standi to sue and recover debts from the transactions entered into in 1988. ( Distilled from grounds 2 and 3 of the Notice of Appeal). c) Whether, in the circumstance of the case, the Supreme Court can uphold the concurrent findings of the fact that the Appellant guaranteed the loan given to the first defendant and therefore liable for its repayment. When there was no guarantee pleaded and founded upon at the trial (Distilled from grounds 5 and 8 of the Notice of Appeal). d) Whether the learned justices of the Court of Appeal were right in holding that there was a valid and enforceable agreement between the first defendant and the Bank in respect of the sum of 2.5 million Naira given to the first defendant when no loan agreement was founded upon at the trial and as at the time of disbursement, the first defendant was not a customer of the bank. (Distilled from ground 4 of the Notice of Appeal) e) Whether the Court of Appeal was right when it awarded interest on the money given to the first defendant after the Respondent had merely stated that it

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA      HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.       CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.      STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.     ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.           JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA  HAJIA UMMA MUKTAR AHMED MOHAMMED.        AND NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.           APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/958/2015 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JSC I have read the draft of the judgement just delivered by my learned brother, Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC. I agree with the reasoning and the conclusion that this appeal is unmeritorious and accordingly dismissed. I, however, would, in a brief comment, lend my voice to the fact that the issue of whether Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act applies to the Federal High Court has, by now been  well settled by this Court, and that controversy has perpetually been laid to rest in the recent decisions of this Court. Apart from the case of Samuel v. APC (2023) 10 NWLR (pt. 1892) P. 195, relied upon in the lead judgement, the case of PDP v. Uche & Ors., (2023) LPELR – 59604 (SC), was exquisite in offering a categorical answer to the query of whether Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act applies to the Federal High Court. In PDP v. Uche & Ors. (Supra), this Court at pp 27-29 Paras. D-E held per Agim, JSC, thus: “The Court of Appeal correctly followed the decisions of this Court in Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc v. API Ltd (supra), B.L. Lizard Shipping Co. Ltd v. M.V. Western Star & Ors. ( supra), Biem v. SDP (Supra) and Boko v. Nungwa (Supra) that S. 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act is not applicable to the Federal High Court because it has a single countrywide territorial jurisdiction. The decision in Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc v. API Ltd (supra) that followed our decisions in B.L. Lizard Shipping Co. Ltd v. M. V. Western Star & Ors. (Supra), Biem v. SPD (Supra) and Boko v. Nungwa (Supra) on the point is that latest of our decision on the point. It is glaring from the clear words of S.97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act that it refers to the writ of summons issued by the High Court of one State or Capital Territory, but to be served on a party in another State. It provides for interstate service of writ of summons. Its provision that the writ shall also have on it an endorsement or notice required by the law of such State or the Capital Territory shows it is not referring to a writ of summons issued by a Federal High Court because the law of a State or Federal Capital Territory on the issuance of a writ of summons and the endorsements to be made thereon do not apply to the Federal High Court and can apply only to the High Court of that State or Federal Capital Territory as the case may be. The jurisdiction of the High Court of each State or Capital Territory is limited within the territory of that State or Capital Territory. The Civil Procedure Rules of the High Court of that State regulate the practice and procedure of that Court in civil proceedings and processes, including the issuance of originating processes and endorsements on such processes. Such Civil Procedure Rules cannot apply to the High Court of another State or the Federal High Court. The Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009 regulate Civil Procedure in the Federal High Court. There is only one Federal High Court of Nigeria with a single countrywide territorial jurisdiction. Its countrywide territorial jurisdiction is not affected by the territorial limits of any state. It operates across all the states. Because of its countrywide territorial jurisdiction, and because state High Court Rules do not apply to it, its processes cannot be said to have been issued by a High Court in a State or Capital territory to be served in another State. Because of its countrywide territorial jurisdiction, the service and enforcement of its processes are not affected by the territorial limits of any State. Section 97 of the Sheriff Civil Process Act is an adjunct to Federalism. The law is to give regards to the federal system of government where the federating units are meant to be semi-autonomous territorially and in governance. A process of court from one state needs to be endorsed for service to be effected outside the state of origin. The Federal High Court is not a state court, it is a court that is meant for the federation and its territorial jurisdiction covers the entire country. Its writ and processes under the law and the new dispensation of the decisions of this court are exempted from the operations of Section 97 and 98 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act. When you carefully look at the law, it did not extend the applicability of that part of the law to the Federal High Court. See the Head Note of PART VII which covers Section 95, 96,97,98 to III , of the Act. Section 95 of the Act gives us the interpretation of the court which part VII relates to. The definition of the court, there is as follows:“Court” means a court which part III, IV, V, and VI apply”. Section 19 of Part III has a definition clause which reads: In this part and part IV, V, and VI, unless the context otherwise requires-“Court” includes the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, or of the State”. From the foregoing provisions of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act Cap S6, LFN 2004, the Federal High Court was excluded from the application of the entire Part VIII hosting Sections 97 and 98, which are in focus in

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA      HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.       CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.      STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.     ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.           JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA  HAJIA UMMA MUKTAR AHMED MOHAMMED.        AND NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.           APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/958/2015 JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, JSC I have read in advance the judgment of my learned brother, Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC, just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion that the appeal lacks merit. The Appellant was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Commercial Trust Bank Limited, a body established under NDIC Act CAP 301 LFN 1990 and that of the First Defendant, Credit and Finance Limited, a limited liability company whose office is situated at 11B Ahmadu Bello Way, Kaduna (First Respondent/Debtor). The Credit and Finance Limited (now called the First Defendant before the trial court) maintained a current account No. 114000010 with the Commercial Trust Bank, Kaduna, and applied for a loan facility of 2.5 million Naira from the bank for the purpose of facilitating financing commodity trade business which loan was approved and granted on 21st December 1988 upon the direct intervention approval of the Appellant. A further facility of 200,000 Naira was also upon another application granted to it, making the total facility to be 2.7 million Naira, which the defendant refused to pay until the Commercial Trust Bank was closed down. In the course of managing the assets and liabilities of the Commercial Trust Bank, the Respondent discovered the indebtedness of the Appellant as at the 31st January 1990. The Respondent wrote demand letters to the Appellant demanding immediate payment of the debt but same was not settled. This led the Respondent as Plaintiff before the Lower Court to commence the action by claiming against the Defendants jointly and severally the sum of N14,795,399.91 being the balance outstanding on the overdraft facilities granted to the first Defendant, Interest and other Bank charges due from the First Defendant to the Commercial Trust Bank Ltd at closure on the 16th January 1998 and interest at the rate of 21% per annum from 17th January 1998 to judgement and final liquidation of the debt. The first Defendant before the Lower Court did not participate in the trial but the Appellant as second defendant filed a statement of defense denying liability though did not testify at the trial. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court gave its judgment of 2nd May, 2006, in favor of the Respondent and that the second Defendant cannot escape from liability and he is accordingly, jointly, and severally found liable to the amount claimed against them. Therefore judgment was entered against both first and second Defendants jointly and severally in terms of the reliefs set out in the statement of claim. On appeal by the Appellant, the Lower Court entered judgment in favor of the Respondent against the first Defendant and the Appellant to the extent that the interest payable on the principal sum of 2.7 million Naira is 18% per annum from 5th January 1989 to 16th January 1998, and the 21% interest payable from 17th January 1998 till judgment and final liquidation of the debt. It is against this judgment of the lower court that the Appellant has further appealed to this Honorable Court. There was evidence, especially on Exhibit G, that the Appellant personally and unconditionally guaranteed the loan facility, including the interest thereof. Where a borrower, that is the third party, fails to pay an outstanding debt, the guarantor or shorty becomes liable for the said debt. See Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Chami v. UBA PLC (2010) LPELR 841 (SC) (Pp. 32 PARAS. B). Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: Ibrahim Gamdeh Adamu,Esq, with Fatima Zara Mohammed,Esq, for the Appellant. Mustapha I. Abubakar, Esq, with Isah D. Haruna, Esq, for the Respondent

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA      HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.       CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA.      STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.     ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.           JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA  HAJIA UMMA MUKTAR AHMED MOHAMMED.        AND NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION.           APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/958/2015 JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY CHIDIEBERE NWAOMA UWA, JSCI have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgement of my learned brother, Hon. Justice Abubakar Sadiq Umar, JSC, just delivered. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal has no merit and should be dismissed. I shall add a few remarks on the contention of the learned counsel to the Appellant that the Respondent is not entitled to any interest whatsoever on the outstanding debt.It is common knowledge that bank facilities or loans do not come free, while it is part of the business of a bank to grant credit facilities to a customer. The customer is also bound to pay interest to the bank. See STB LTD. v. INTER DRILL NIGERIA LTD. (2007) ALL FWLR pt. 366 page 756 at 761.It is now well settled that banks, not being charitable organizations, have the power or are entitled to charge interest on loans or other advances or facilities granted or made available to a customer, even where there was no express agreement on the rate of interest to be charged. See Adetoro v. U.B.N. PLC (2007) LPELR – 8991.In Diamond Bank Ltd v. Partnership Investment Co Ltd & Anor (2009) LPELR – 939(SC) (Pp 29-30 Paras D-A) his lordship, Ikechi Francis Ugbuagu, JSC, in determining the general rule as to payment of interest on a debt or loan, held thus:“… the general rule at Common Law is that interest is not payable on a debt or loan in the absence of express agreement or some course of dealing or custom to that effect. See London Chattam and Dover Railway v. South Eastern Railway (1893) A.C 249. Thus, interest will, however, be payable where there is an express agreement to that effect and such an agreement may be inferred from a course of dealing between the parties. See Re-Duncan and Co, (1905) 1 Ch. 307, or where an obligation to pay interest arises from common or usage of a particular trade or business, and, I add, like in banking.Similarly, in Nkwo Market Community Bank (Nig) Ltd v. OBI (2010) LPELR -2051(SC) (Pp 22-22 Paras C-E) his lordship Muhammad Saifullahi Muntaka-Coomassie, JSC also held thus:“In the case of Alfotrin Vs A-G Federation (1996) 12 SCNJ 236 at 240 this Court held as follows:- “The general rule at common law is that interest is not payable on a debt or loan in the absence of express agreement on some course of dealing or custom to that effect. Interest will, however, be payable where there is an express agreement to that effect and such agreement may be enforced from a course of dealing between the parties or where an obligation to pay interest arises from the custom or usage of a particular trade or business.”It is therefore clear that interest may be claimed and awarded in any of the following situations:- (1) where the parties expressly agree to the interest or (2) where the customer and practices of the trade giving rise to the legal relationship recognize the payment of interest or (3), where the interest is provided by statute or subsidiary legislations such as the rules of court.The Respondent in this case, which is the liquidator of the defunct Commercial Trust Bank Limited, (herein after referred to as the bank), is seeking to recover the unpaid loan granted to Credit and Finance Limited, (the first Defendant at the trial court) by the bank. The bank, being a financial institution, is entitled to claim interest on the loan granted to Credit and Finance Limited, in line with the custom and practices of financial institutions, even where, for instance, there is no express agreement to that effect. The case of the Respondent is further strengthened by Exhibit G (The Credit Approval Form) which contains the terms of agreement between the parties, including the terms as to the rate of interest payable.The lower court, having examined the said Exhibit G, came to the conclusion that:“At column C6, it states (sic) the interest rate as follows: Interest rate: 2% per annum above Commercial Trust Bank Prime Lending Rate, currently 16.03 per annum GIV (sic), a gross rate of 18% per annum./, interest shall be payable in arrears. This was the interest rate that was agreed between the parties at the time of the application for and grant of the loan facility to which paragraph relates.”I am in alignment with the findings of the lower court that the parties had by Exhibit G agreed that a gross interest rate of 18% per annum shall be applicable for payment in arrears.The lower is trite that parties to a contract are bound by the terms of the contract, and in determining the rights and obligations under the contract, the Court must observe and respect its sanctity and not allow a term on which there was no agreement to be read into the contract. See Canitec International Company Ltd. Vs. Solel Bonneh Nig. Ltd. (2017) 10 NWLR (pt. 1572) At. 66; Idufueko vs Pfizer Products Ltd. (2014) 12 NWLR (pt. 1420) AT. 96. It is not the practice of the Court to make a new agreement for parties. The terms of a contract must remain sacred, preserved, and respected by the parties.In Access Bank v. NSITF (2022) LPELR – 57817(SC) (Pp 32-32 Paras C-D) his lordship Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun, JSC, while determining whether parties are bound by the terms of their contract, held thus:“It is a settled principle of law that parties

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA       HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO. ADAMU JAURO.          EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.            OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA.               HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU.              JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA The State.                                   AND   Jerry Gideon APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CR/413/2020 JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA, JSCThis appeal ensures the rightness of the decision of the Court of Appeal, Yola Division ( hereinafter addressed as “the lower court”), coram judice: C.N Uwa, JCA ( now JSC), J.S. Abiriyi, JCA, and A.M Bayero, JCA, in Appeal No: CA/YL/138c/2018, delivered on the 25th March, 2020. The lower court, in its decision, set aside the decision of the High Court of Adamawa State (the trial court), in Charge No: ADSY/55c/2017, delivered by Abdul-Azeez Waziri, J., (now JCA), on the 11th June 2018, wherein the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death and terms of imprisonment.The facts material of the case which metamorphosed into the appeal are submissive to the brevity and simplicity. Mohammed Siddi, Ori Sarti, Adamu Bello and others were headers of cattle in Kadamum village in the Demisa Local Government Area of Adamawa State. On the 18th January 2017, in the course of rearing their cattle, they got to a river where they wanted their cows to drink water. There was a nearby farm with a steaming generator.Mohammed Siddi saw one person he did not know. He then told his fellow herders that the person was going to shoot at them. Then they started running away. They (not he now) pursued them. They (the herders) entered among the cows. But, Adamu Bello, who was ten years old, was caught by the people pursuing them. Mohammed Siddi, who was in front, heard Adamu Bello, crying. Then, he heard a gunshot. He then went and informed their father, Alhaji Buba, about what happened. After that, they went and lodged a report of the incident to the police. They went with the police to the place Adamu Bello was caught, where they found blood stain, a sign of dragging, and this cap with blood stain. They went to the riverbank but could not find his body. The Respondent and four others, Alheri Phanuel, Holy Bariface, Tari Sabagi and Jerry Giddeon, were arrested by the police. After due investigation, they were arraigned before the trial court on a five-count charge/information for the offences of criminal conspiracy, culpable homicide punishable with death, inciting disturbance, mischief by killing or maiming animals, and causing disappearance of evidence punishable under Section 97 (1), 221(b),114 (1), 330/79 and 167/79 of the Penal Code Laws of Adamawa State 1997 respectively. They all pleaded not guilty to all the counts of the information.Following the plea of not guilty, the trial court conducted a full-dressed determination of the case. The appellant called six witnesses, PW1-PW6. The respondent and four others testified each in defence of the case and called no witness. Documentary and tangible evidence were admitted as exhibits. At the closure of the evidence, the parties, through their respective counsel, addressed the trial court in the manner required by law. In a considered judgment delivered on the 11th June 2018, located at pages 102-148 of the record, the trial court found them guilty, convicted them of the offences, and sentenced each to death and terms of imprisonment. The respondent was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court. Hence, on the 8th August 2018, the respondent lodged a five-ground notice of appeal, which was later amended to the lower court, which is copied at pages 168-173 of the record. The lower court duly heard the appeal. In a considered judgment delivered on 25th March 2020, lying at pages 269-289 of the record. The lower court allowed the appeal by declaring the trial a nullity for the non-signing of the charge.The appellant was aggrieved by the judgment. Hence, on the 24th April 2020, the appellant launched a six-ground notice of appeal found at pages 290-295 of the record, wherein it prayed this court as follows: (a) An order allowing the appeal.(b) An order setting aside the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal Yola in Appeal No: CA/YL/138c/2018 (JERRY GIDEON v. THE STATE) delivered on March 25th, 2020.(c) An ORDER quashing of discharge and acquittal of the respondent and, in its place, affirm the judgment of the trial court delivered on the 11th day of June 2018 or, in the alternative(d) An ORDER ordering for retrial before a High Court of Justice.Thereafter, the parties, through their counsel, filed and exchanged their respective briefs of argument in line with the procedure governing the hearing of criminal appeals in this court. The appeal was heard on the 28th March 2024.During the hearing, learned counsel for the Appellant, Z.Y. Usman , Esq., adopted the appellant’s brief of argument, filed on the 30th September 2020 and the appellant’s reply brief filed on the 10th December, 2020, as representing his arguments for the appeal. He urged the court to allow it.Similarly, learned counsel for the Respondent S.S. Obende, Esq., adopted the Respondent’s Brief of Argument filed on the 5th November 2020, as forming his reactions against the appeal. He urged the court to dismiss it.In the appellant’s Brief of Argument, learned counsel distilled three issues for determination. At the hearing of appeal, he withdrew issues 2 and 3 and retained a solitary issue 1 for determination to wit. Was the lower court not in error when it held that the matter was not initiated before the trial court by due process of law and upon fulfillment of a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, thereby rendering the whole excise in futility, and yet went ahead and discharged and acquitted the appellant. In the Respondent’s Brief of Arguments, learned counsel crafted

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA       HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO. ADAMU JAURO.          EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.            OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA.               HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU.              JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA The State.                                   AND   Jerry Gideon APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CR/413/2020 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JSC I have had the privilege of reading before now the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JSC. His Lordship has considered and resolved the issues in contention in the appeal. I agree with the reasoning and abide the conclusion reached. The Respondent was one of the five persons arraigned before the trial Court by the Appellant on five counts charge of criminal conspiracy, culpable homicide punishable with death, inciting disturbance, mischief by killing or maiming animals, and causing disappearance of evidence. The Respondent pleaded not guilty, and the matter proceeded to trial, and in course of which the Appellant called six witnesses in proof of the charge against the Respondent, and the Respondent testified as the sole witness in his defense. At the conclusion of trial and after the filing and adoption of final witness addresses by Counsel to the parties, the trial Court entered judgment wherein it convicted the Respondent on all the counts and sentenced him to death and terms of imprisonment. The Respondent was aggrieved by the judgment and he caused an appeal to be filed against it to the Court of Appeal sitting in Yola, and the appeal was concretized in an amended notice of appeal containing seven grounds of appeal. One of the grounds of appeal questioned for the first time the competence of the motion to prefer a charge and of the charge by which the proceedings were commenced in the trial Court for the failure of the Counsel who filed the motion and the charge to sign either of them. Counsel to the Respondent distilled two issues for the termination of the lower Court in the appeal, and these were: i. Whether the proceedings conducted before the trial Court was not a nullity. Ii. Whether the prosecution proved the case against the Appellant to justify his conviction and sentence by trial Court. The lower Court heard the appeal on the merits and it delivered a considered judgment wherein it deliberated on the first issue for a termination thus: “Although the law is trite that a defect in a charge should be raised timeously, the Appellant in this appeal was granted leave on 31st January 2019 to amend his notice of appeal in order to raise a fresh issue of law, which according to him, touches on the issues of jurisdiction. It is the law that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, even on appeal to the Supreme Court.” The Courts are blind to any document that is not signed. That explains the provision of section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, CAP 39, Laws of Adamawa State, 1997, which provides as follows: ‘Charges may be as in the forms set out in Appendix B, modified in such respects as may be necessary to adapt them to the circumstances of each case.’ The zombie charges contained in Appendix B indicate that a charge must be signed or sealed. A criminal trial is not a tea party, but a grave responsibility entrusted on the State. It is for this reason that it is provided by the law that the charge against the accused person be signed. Any officer of the Ministry of Justice other than the Attorney General can validly sign a charge… Even a hasty look at the application to prefer the charge and the charge itself against the Appellant and the other co-accused persons shows the names of two State counsel, but none of them signed either the application to prefer the charge against the accused persons or the charge itself. There was therefore a feature in the charge which prevented Court below from excising its jurisdiction to try the Appellant. The matter did not come to the Court initiated by due process of law and upon the fulfillment of a condition precedent to the excise of jurisdiction. The trial was therefore an excise in futility… The charge against the Appellant and the other accused persons was inflicted with a death wound by the learned State Counsel who failed to sign it and it was dead on arrival.” The lower Court resolved the first issue for determination before it in favour of the Respondent. The lower Court thereafter proceeded to consider the second issue for determination, and it traversed through the oral and documentary evidence laid by the Appellant in proving the charge against the Respondent, and it found that the trial Court committed a deluge of errors in its evaluation of the evidence. The lower Court found that the evidence led by the Appellant on each of the five counts did not meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal charge, and it resolved the second issue for determination also in favour of the Respondent. The lower Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court, and it discharged and acquitted the Respondent. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower Court and it filed an appeal to this Court against it, and the notice of appeal contained six grounds of appeal. Counsel to the Appellant distilled three issues for this Court to determine in the appeal, and these were: i. Was the lower Court not in error when it held that the matter was initiated before the trial Court by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, thereby rendering

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA       HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO. ADAMU JAURO.          EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.            OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA.               HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU.              JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA The State.                                   AND   Jerry Gideon APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CR/413/2020 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY JOHN INYANG OKOROJSC I have had a preview of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JSC, and without hesitation, I completely agree with the reasons expatiated to arrive at the conclusion thatthe appeal be dismissed.  The position of the law is well-settled that an unsigned copy document is a worthless piece of paper with no probative value. It does not matter whether it was objected to at the point of tendering or, as in this case, during the plea. As long as you a document or court process that is unsigned, it is worthless and does not have any efficacy in law. See Ali vs. State (2021) 12 NWLR (pt.1789) 159; Maku vs. Al-Makura & Ors. (2016) LPELR – 48123 (SC); Conoil vs. Vitol S.A (2018) 9 NWLR (pt. 1625) 463; State vs. Sa’idu (2019) LPELR – 47397 (SC).  In the instant case, the charge prepared by the prosecution upon which the Respondent was arraigned was not signed, thereby robbing the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matt. The effect is that the case was not initiated by due process of law, thus void ab ignition. The Appellant’s contention that the Respondent’s failure to raise objection timeously to the unsigned charge amount to a waiver of his right to object is nothing but a desperate attempt by a drowning man clutching on every straw available, because parties cannot by consent or otherwise donate or confer jurisdiction on a court where the courthas no jurisdiction to entertain a matter. See Mobil producing Nigeria Unlimited vs. Monokpo ( 2003) 18 NWLR (pt. 852) 346.  Appellant’s failure to sign the charge had ruined the entire proceeding beyond remedy. Consequently, the charge being the foundation upon which the proceeding was based, was non-existent. The entire proceeding became fundamentally defective and crumbled since one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. See U.A.C vs Mcfoy (1962) ACP 152.  In the case ofKida Vs. Ogunmola (2006) LPELR – 1690 (SC), this Court per Musdapher, JSCconsidered the effect of a defective originating process when he said that: “…. the validity of the originating process in a proceeding before a Court is fundamental, as the competence of the proceeding is a condition sine qua non to the legitimacy of any suit. Therefore, the failure to commence proceedings with a valid Writ of Summons goes to the root of the case and any order emanating from such proceeding is liable to be set aside as incompetent and a nullity. It clearly borders on the issue of jurisdiction and the competence of court to adjudicate on the matter…”  The above statement succinctly encapsulates the position of the law regarding a court action commenced with a defective originating process. For the avoidance of doubt, I need to say that a charge is to a criminal trial what a Writ of Summons is to a civil action. They are both originating processes in their respective rights and are the base of the entire proceedings, either civil or criminal.  All I have labored to say here is that the unsigned charge upon which the Respondent was tried and convicted was a worthless piece of paper which did not confer jurisdiction on the court to try him. To this end, the appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed by me. The decision of the Court of Appeal delivered on 25th March 2020 is hereby affirmed.  Appeal Dismissed.  JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT  APPEARANCES: Z.Y. Musa, Esq, SSCI, Ministry of Justice, Yola, AdamawaState, for the Appellant. S.S Obende, Esq; with him, Simon Wilson, Esq and W.S. Aboki,Esq, for the Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA       HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO. ADAMU JAURO.          EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.            OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA.               HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU.              JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA The State.                                   AND   Jerry Gideon APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/CR/413/2020 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY ADAMU JAURO JSC I had the privilege of reading a draft copy of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JSC. I Agree with his reasoning and conclusion arrived at to the effect that the appeal is devoid of merit. I too dismiss the appeal and abide by the orders made in the lead judgment.   ADAMU JAURO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES: Z.Y. Musa, Esq, SSCI, Ministry of Justice, Yola, Adamawa State, for the Appellant. S.S Obende, Esq; with him, Simon Wilson, Esq and W.S. Aboki, Esq, for the Respondent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA       HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO. ADAMU JAURO.          EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.            OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA.                 HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU.              JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA JUSTICE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA The State.                                   AND   Jerry Gideon APPELLANT     RESPONDENT SC/CR/413/2020 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, JSC I had a preview of the judgment delivered by my learned brother, Obande Festus Ogbuinya, JSC. I completely agree with the reasoning, conclusions, and decisions therein.   EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT   APPEARANCES: Z.Y. Musa, Esq, SSCI, Ministry of Justice, Yola, Adamawa State, for the Appellant.   S.S Obende, Esq; with him, Simon Wilson, Esq and W.S. Aboki, Esq, for the Respondent.