EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY,2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.    HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.         EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.       ADAMU JAURO.        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 HIGH CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE       ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC). AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. LABOUR PARTY.  DR. ALEX CHIOMA OTTI.  PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  CHIEF AMBROSE OKECHUKWU AHIWE. YOUNG PROGRESSIVE PARTY. HON. CHIOMA ENYINNAYA NWAFOR.  APPELLANT RESPONDENT  SC/CV/1252/2023 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM,JSC I had a preview of the judgement delivered by my learned brother, Lord Justice, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC. I completely agree with the reasoning, conclusions, decisions therein. EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT APPEARANCES ABUBAKAR MALAMI, SAN; MR TOCHUKWU D. MADUKA, SAN; UBONG ESOP AKPAN, ESQ; REMI AWE, ESQ; AND IDONGESIT EKPO, ESQ, FOR THE APPELLANTS. J.O. ADESINA, SAN, FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT; WITH HIM, DR. NASIRU TIJJANI, ESQ; S.G. UDOH, ESQ AND W.O. EKOHVBIYI, ESQ. TOCHUKWU KENECHUKWU NWEKE, ESQ, FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT; WITH HIM, DR OBINNA ONYA, ESQ AND JULIUS MBA, ESQ. OMOSANYA POPOOLA, ESQ, FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT; WITH HIM, T.C OYEDEJI, ESQ AND M.K FIDELIS, ESQ. UDOCHI IHEACHO, ESQ, FOR THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS; WITH HIM, CHUKWUEMEKA NWAOGU, ESQ; EMEKA EZE, ESQ; CHIJIOKE NWOGU, ESQ AND CHIKODI OKEORJI. C.N NWIGWE, ESQ; WITH HIM, ADEBIMPE OREKOYA, ESQ, FOR THE 6TH RESPONDENT. NNAMDI N. AHAAIWE, ESQ, FOR THE 7TH RESPONDENT; WITH HIM, OGOCHUKWU N. OFOR, ESQ AND OBINNA C. OCHIOBI, ESQ.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY,2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.    HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.         EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.       ADAMU JAURO.        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 HIGH CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE       ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC). AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. LABOUR PARTY.  DR. ALEX CHIOMA OTTI.  PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  CHIEF AMBROSE OKECHUKWU AHIWE. YOUNG PROGRESSIVE PARTY. HON. CHIOMA ENYINNAYA NWAFOR.  APPELLANT       RESPONDENT  SC/CV/1252/2023 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY JOHN INYANG OKORO,JSC I had the advantage of reading the leading judgment of my learned brother, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC before now. I wholly agree with his lordship’s reasoning and conclusion. Suffice to say that I still cannot find the reason why the counsel will agree to duplicate this appeal which is clearly, as pointed out in the leading judgment, a Siamese twin with appeal No. SC/CV/1250/2023. Perhaps the intention is to confuse the court to make conflicting decisions and orders. We have found our way through, and by the grace of God, we shall be consistent in order not to mislead the parties. Counsel must note that this court is probably the busiest Supreme Court in the world, and as such, splitting of appeals to give more work to the justices should not be encouraged. The word is enough for the wise. Appeal Dismissed. JOHN INYANG OKORO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT COUNSEL: J.O ADESINA, SAN, APPEARS WITH DR. NASIRU TIJJANI, ESQ., S.G UDOH, ESQ., AND W.O. EKHOVBIYI, ESQ., FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT. TOBECHUKWU K. NWEKE, ESQ., APPEARS WITH DR. OBINNA ONYA, ESQ. AND JULIUS MBA, ESQ., FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT. OMOSANYA POPOOLA, ESQ., APPEARS WITH T.C. OYEDEJI, ESQ. AND M.K. FIDELIS, ESQ., FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT. UDOCHI IHEANACHO, ESQ. APPEARS WITH CHUKWUEMEKA NWAOGU,ESQ., EMEKA EZE, ESQ., CHIJIOKE NWOGU, ESQ. AND CHIKODI OKEJI, ESQ., FOR THE FOURTH AND FIFTH RESPONDENTS.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY,2024         BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN INYANG OKORO    UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.    HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU.         EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM.       ADAMU JAURO.        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 HIGH CHIEF IKECHI EMENIKE       ALL PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS (APC). AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. LABOUR PARTY.  DR. ALEX CHIOMA OTTI.  PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  CHIEF AMBROSE OKECHUKWU AHIWE. YOUNG PROGRESSIVE PARTY. HON. CHIOMA ENYINNAYA NWAFOR.  APPELLANT       RESPONDENT  SC/CV/1252/2023 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY ADAMU JAURO,JSC   I had a preview of the judgement just delivered by my learned brother, Uwani Musa Abba Aji, JSC. I entirely agree with the reasoning and conclusions contained therein, to the effect that the appeal is lacking  in merit and ought to be dismissed.   At the election for the Office of Governor of Abia State held on 18th March 2023, the 3rd Respondent emerged winner with 175,467 vote, the 5th Respondent finished in second place with 88,529 votes, the 7th Respondent finished third with 28,972 votes. While the 1st Appellant who was the first petitioner before the Abia State Governorship Election Tribunal came a distant fourth with a paltry 24,091 votes.   I agree that, apart from the fact that the Appellants are requesting that this court performs a judicial miracle by disqualifying the 3rd, 5th, and 7th Respondents who finished first, second, and third, respectively, at the election, the issues raised in this appeal are identical to and have been resolved in appeal No. SC/CV/1250/2023.    For these and the more elaborate reasons given in the lead judgment, I too hereby dismiss the appeal. I abide by the consequential orders made in the lead judgment.   Appeal dismissed.     ADAMU JAURO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT     APPEARANCES   MR ABUBAKAR MALAMI, SAN; MR TOCHUKWU D. MADUKA, SAN; UBONG ESOP AKPAN, ESQ; REMI AWE, ESQ; AND IDONGESIT EKPO, ESQ, FOR THE APPELLANTS.   J.O. ADESINA, SAN, FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT; WITH HIM, DR. NASIRU TIJJANI, ESQ; S.G. UDOH, ESQ AND W.O. EKOHUIBIYI, ESQ. MR TOCHUKWU KENECHUKWU NWEKE, ESQ, FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT; WITH HIM, DR OBINNA ONYA, ESQ AND JULIUS MBA, ESQ.   MR OMOSANYA POPOOLA, ESQ, FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT; WITH HIM, T.K OYEDEJI, ESQ AND M.K FIDELIS, ESQ.   UDOCHI IHEANACHO, ESQ, FOR THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS; WITH HIM, CHUKWUEMEKA NWAOGU, ESQ; EMEKA EZE, ESQ; CHIJIOKE NWOGU, ESQ AND CHIKEODI OKEORJI.   C.N NWIGWE, ESQ; WITH HIM, ADEBIMPE OREKOYA, ESQ, FOR THE 6TH RESPONDENT.   NNAMDI N. AHAAIWE, ESQ, FOR THE 7TH RESPONDENT; WITH HIM, OGOCHUKWU N. OFOR, ESQ AND OBINNA C. OCHIOBI, ESQ.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 19TH DAY OF JULY,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 SGT. AKAWU BALA.              AND NIGERIAN ARMY.     APPELLANT   RESPONDENT  SC/889/2017 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY  HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC This is an appeal against the judgement of the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division coram: Bdliya, Kalio, and Adefope-Okojoe, JJCA delivered on 17th day of February, 2017 wherein it declared the proceedings at the trial court(General Court Martial) a nullity but went ahead to hold that it cannot discharge and acquit the defendant as that will amount to validating the decision of a court which is a nullity. It is against this that the Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court containing two grounds of appeal which was filed on the 16th of March, 2017. The facts that led to this appeal are as follows: The Appellant at all times material to this case was Sergeant in the Nigerian Army. On or about the 9th day of December 2012, the Appellant while on duty at African Petroleum (AP) filling station at Sabon Tasha, Kaduna, shot at one Isa Mohammed (now deceased) with an AK-47. Isah Mohammed later died at St. Gerald’s Catholic Hospital, Kaduna the following day. The Appellant was arraigned before General Court Martial, Kaduna (Hereinafter called the trial court) on a two count charge, to wit: the offences by or in relation to sentries watch, etc. punishable under Section 50(1)(d) of the Armed Forces Act CAP A20 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2014 and murder punishable under Section 106 (a) of the Armed Forces Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2014. At the conclusion of the Court Martial, the Appellant was convicted and sentenced on Count 1 to be reduced to the rank of Cpl and Death with respect to Count 2. The decision of the General Court Martial was confirmed by the appropriate superior authority. The Appellant received notification of the confirmation of the finding of the trial General Court Martial on the 26th June, 2014 when he was processed to the civil prisons in Kaduna. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the General Court Martial filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal, Kaduna. The Appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal (hereinafter called the Court below) was partly allowed, the judgement of the trial Court was set aside on grounds that the charge sheet having not been properly signed by the Appellant’s commanding officer as required by law rendered all proceedings predicated on that charge sheet a nullity. In conclusion, the Court went on to hold on page 319 of the Record that “Having found the charge sheet to be a nullity, it follows that the proceedings based on it including the judgement of the General Court Martial are equally incurably bad in consequence, I find that the appeal has merit. The Appellant however cannot be discharged and acquitted as that will amount to validating the judgement that’s a nullity. The judgement of the General Court Martial is hereby set aside” The purpose of that the Appellant wants this Court to discharge him and not subject him to a fresh trial by virtue of Section 193 of the Armed Forces Act. The sole issue is expressed in the Appellant’s brief settled by Dr. R. O. Atabo, SAN as follows: ” Whether the decision of the Lower Court that Appellant cannot be discharged and acquitted was right having allowed the appeal and held the charge sheet and judgement of the General Court Martial to be a nullity and whether the judgement of the Lower Court does not amount to a denial of the Appellant’s fundamental right and thereby occasion a miscarriage of justice in the circumstance of this case considering the provisions of Section 193 of the Armed Forces Act CAP. A 20 LFN, 2004″ The Respondent’s brief settled by Isaac Udoka states the sole issue as follows:  ‘Assuming that the Lower Court was right when it declared the trial of the GCM a nullity, whether the appropriate order a fresh trial and to keep the Appellant under detention bearing in mind the nature of the offences?’ SOLE ISSUE Learned Appellant’s counsel argued that notwithstanding the findings of the Court below and the setting aside of the judgement which convicted the Appellant is still being held in prison awaiting trial in contravention of Section 193 of the Armed Forces Act is to the effect that anyone whose conviction by the Court Martial is quashed by an appellate court shall not be liable to be tried for that offence by either a court martial or by another court avails the Appellant in this case. Counsel insisted that the proper order to be made in the circumstances of this case is that of discharge and acquittal as the Appellant can no longer be tried for that same offence, the judgement of the Court Martial having been nullified. Counsel submitted that the words of the statute are so clear and unambiguous and that they should be given their proper meaning. Counsel urged this Court not to subject the Appellant to a mere discharge but to acquit him rather than subject him to the whims of the prosecution to face a retrial. Counsel cited CHIEF OF STAFF v. IYEN(2005) 6 NWLR Pt. 922 Pg. 496 at 543. Counsel argued that the Court below should have looked at the whole evidence of the trial court and arrived at a conclusion on the merit of the appeal to arrive at a conclusion to acquit the Appellant. Counsel cited MOHAMMED v. THE STATE (2013) 5 NWLR Pt. 1347 Pg. 315 at Pg 327 Counsel further submitted that Section 193 of Armed

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS JOHN IYANG OKORO UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA ADAMU JAURO EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM 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 SC/ CV/1165/2023 DAUDA LAWAL.                                                                                                                                  APPELLANT AND BELLO MUHAMMAD MATAWALLE ALL PROGRESSIVES CONGRESS (APC) |                                                                    RESPONDENTS INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)  PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP) JUDGMENT (DELIVERED BY I.M.M. SAULAWA, JSC. It is trite, that Governorship elections were conducted nationwide by the 3rd Respondent on March 18, 2023. Both the Appellant and the 1st Respondent had keenly contested the said election under the platforms of their respective political parties, the People’s Democratic Party (the 4th Respondent) and the All Progressives Congress (the 2d Respondent). On March 21, 2023, the 3 Respondent declared the Appellant as winner of the said election having scored majority lawful votes totaling to 377,721. The 1st Respondent came a distant second with 311,976 lawful votes. Where upon, the 3rd Respondent returned the Appellant as the duly elected Governor of Zamfara State, in accordance with the provisions of section 179(2) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended.Not unnaturally, the 15 Respondent was utterly dissatisfied with the declaration and return of the Appellant as the winner of the said election, thus he filed a petition at the Governorship Eiection Petition Tribunal Zamfara State upon the following twogrounds: ії.The 1st Respondent was not duly elected by majority of lawful votes cast at the election.The election was invalid by reason of corrupt practices or non-compliance with the provision of Electoral Act. “ The 1st Respondent prayed the tribunal for the following reliefs:That it may be determined and thus determined that the 1st Respondent Dauda Lawal of the 2d Respondent was not duly elected or returned by the majority of lawful votes cast at the Zamfara State Governorship election held on the 18th march, 2023. That it may be determined and thus determined that the ist Petitioner bedeclared validly elected having polled the highest number of lawful votes cast at the election.OR IN THE ALTERNATIVEThat it may be determined and thus determined that the Zamfara StateGovernorship election held on 18thMarch, 2023 is inconclusive.That fresh election be ordered into the affected Polling Units where elections did not hold, were cancelled or there was over-voting. At the conclusion of the pre-hearing session, the petition proceeded to hearing. At the end of hearing of the petition, the Tribunal delivered its judgment on 18/09/2023, to the conclusive effect: Finally, upon thorough consideration of the pleadings/ Evidence demonstrated and decisions herein before referred the Tribunal is of the view that the Petitioners have not proved the allegations in the petition to be entitled to the reliefs sought. This issue is resolved in favour of the Respondent.Consequently, the petition is dismissed. The declaration and return of the 1st Respondent DAUDA LAWAL by the 3ª Respondent be and is hereby affirmed. Cost in the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Naira only (A500,000) is awarded to each of the Respondents.Judgment is hereby entered.Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the Tribunal, the 1st Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal sitting at Sokoto. The Court below heard the said appeal and delivered its judgment on 16/11/2023, to the conclusive effect:Although issues 1 and 2 have been resolved in favour of the Respondents issues 3, 4, 6 and 7 which are carnal of the Appeal are resolved in favour of the Appellants. Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed in part.In order to forestall any ambiguity, the Court hereby orders as follows:A. The Gubernatorial Election held in Zamfara State on the 18th March, 2023 is inconclusive and the return of the 1st Respondent is hereby set aside.B. The 3ª Respondent is hereby directed to hold fresh election in Maradun Local Government and the affected polling units in Birni Mogaji (sic) Local Government and Bukuyum Local Government.The Appellant was utterly dissatisfied with the judgment of the court, thus deemed it expedient to file the instant appeal. By the Notice of Appeal, filed on 28/11/2023, the Appellant has urged upon this court a total of 4 reliefs:• To allow the Appeal.• To set aside the judgment of the lower court delivered on 16 day of November 2023 in Appeal No. CA/S/EP/GOV/ZM/21/2023 save the part resolving issues 1 & 2 in favor of the Appellant.• To set aside all the consequential orders made by the court below.• To affirm and/or restore the judgment of the Zamfara State Governorship Election Petition Tribunal delivered on the 18th day of Sepember, 2023.• To dismiss the 1st and 2d Respondents’ Petition. On 01/2024, when the appeal came up for hearing, the learned senior counsel had the opportunity of addressing the court and adopting their respective briefs of argument, thereby warranting the court to reserve judgment to today. The Appellant’s brief of argument, settled on 07/12/2023 by DD Dodo, SAN, spans a total of 10 pages. At pages 9-10 of the said brief, 10 issues have been couched: I. Whether in view of Exhibits RA-R10A and Exhibits P163-P175, the court below was right to order for a fresh election in Maradun Local Government Area (Grounds 1 and 2). ії. Whether by virtue of clauses 57, 62 and 67 of the regulations and guidelines for the conduct of Elections and Exhibits P202G-P266G, the 1st and 2 Respondents were able to establish the margin of lead

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 19TH DAY OF JULY,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.         JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY.        STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.          ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.      MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS.     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 FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.          ELIJAH OLA ADEDIWUR   BEN-SEGBA TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD.  MR. BERNARD ESEGBA.  APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/234/2016 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY  MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS, JSC I had a preview of the judgement delivered by my learned brother, Stephen Jonah Adah, JSC. I completely agree with the reasoning, conclusions and decisions therein.   MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT   APPEARANCES: Okodaso, Esq with U. Oru, Esq for the Appellant Egbon, Esq for the Respondent  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 19TH DAY OF JULY,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.         JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY.        STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.          ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.      MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS.     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 FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.          ELIJAH OLA ADEDIWUR   BEN-SEGBA TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD.  MR. BERNARD ESEGBA.  APPELLANT RESPONDENT 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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA   HOLDEN AT ABUJA ON FRIDAY THE 19TH DAY OF JULY,2024 BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.         JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY.        STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.          ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.      MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS.     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 FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.          ELIJAH OLA ADEDIWUR   BEN-SEGBA TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD.  MR. BERNARD ESEGBA.  APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/234/2016 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JSC This is an appeal from the Benin Division of the lower court in Appeal No: CA/B/269/2011, wherein the lower court allowed the appeal in part. The lower court held that the Trial State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for some of the reliefs which the lower court mentioned as reliefs 4, 6, and 11. The facts of this case are not much in contention. The respondents (as plaintiffs) took out a Writ of Summons dated and filed 23rd June, 2008 against the appellants (as defendants). Two motions supported by identical affidavits, one ex parte, dated and filed 23/6/2008, and the other motion on notice was filed alongside the Writ of Summons. And on the next day, 24th June, 2008, the trial court heard and granted the motion ex parte and ordered an interim injunction by which it restrained the appellant from (1) “taking further or any step for the recovery of the disputed loan/interest and (2) restraining 2nd defendant from taking over, managing, receiving, disposing/selling, removing anything in respect of Plaintiffs’ properties” pending the hearing and the determination of the motion on notice. The trial court then adjourned the motion on notice with the same set of prayers to 15th July 2008. It was at this stage that the appellants (as defendants) were served with the Writ of Summons together with the enrolled order of interim injunction. The appellants entered a conditional appearance and reacted by filing a motion on notice dated 10th July, 2009, supported by an affidavit. Appellants therein prayed the trial court for an order for “leave and extension of time within which to apply for, and an order discharging the order of interim injunction and/or striking out of the respondent’s suit on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and/or adjudicate on the matter for the plaintiffs’ are in receivership. The claim of the respondents as endorsed on the Writ of Summons are as follows: A declaration that the loan transaction/contract between 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant was frustrated by natural causes, for which reason 1st defendant need not charge interest on same. A declaration that the undated and unsigned tripartite legal mortgage purportedly made between 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant is oppressive, null and void, and of no effect whatsoever. A declaration that 1st Defendant willfully and totally frustrated the contract between itself and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd, i.e contract No. W13196. A declaration that the purported letter of 1st Defendant dated 31st, March 2008 allegedly appointed 2nd Defendant as the receiver/manager of 1st Plaintiff is null, void and of no effect whatsoever. The sum of N10,000,000,000.00 (Ten billion naira) damages against the 1st Defendant for breach of contract when sometime in April, 2008 1st Defendant without any regard to its letter dated 20th February, 2007 and without notice to Plaintiffs, unlawfully appointed 2nd Defendant as receiver/manager to take over 1st Plaintiff. The sum of N9,000,000.00 ( Nine million naira) being money collected by the 2nd defendant in the office of 1st plaintiff on the 16th of June 2008 when it unlawfully broke into the premises of first plaintiff with armed men. The sum of N1,000,000,000.000 (One billion naira) being damages for trespass against the Defendants. An order mandatory injunction compelling the 1st Defendant to produce the statement of account of 1st plaintiff in account No. 2050001833 with the 1st defendant. An order of mandatory injunction compelling the 1st Defendant furnish 1st Plaintiff with all the particulars and interest charged on the loan and the total amount debited from the First Plaintiff’s said account, the subject matter of this suit. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from doing anything or taking any step or further step for the recovery of the disputed loan/interest charged thereof, the subject matter of this suit. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd defendant, his agents, servants, privies, or whomsoever from taking over, managing, receiving, disposing/selling, doing anything or taking any step or further step in respect of the plaintiffs properties by virtue of the purported letter of 31st March, 2008. And for any other relief(s) this Honourable court may deem suitable or fit to make in the circumstances. The trial court took argument on the objection and dismissed it in a ruling delivered on the 14th August 2009. Appellants being dissatisfied, appealed the ruling. The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, partly held that only Claims Nos. 4, 6, and 11 can be heard and determined by the Federal High Court, while the other claims were comfortably within the jurisdiction of the Trial State High Court. Aggrieved by this part of the judgment of the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, the appellants have appealed to this court vide a Notice of Appeal dated on 5th February 2016. There are five (5) grounds of appeal. From the five grounds of appeal, the appellants distilled a sole issue for determination. The respondents in the same mode, distilled a sole issue for determination of this appeal.  The issue raised by the appellant is couched as follows:  Whether having regard to all the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents, has the High Court of Delta State jurisdiction to adjudicate on the Plaintiffs/Respondents’ action? The respondents, in their own brief, raised the following sole issue for determination: Whether the lower court was right in holding that the Trial State High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the respondent’s claim

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI.         JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY.        STEPHEN JONAH ADAH.          ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR.      MOHAMMED BABA IDRIS.     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 FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC.          ELIJAH OLA ADEDIWUR   BEN-SEGBA TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD.  MR. BERNARD ESEGBA.  APPELLANT RESPONDENT SC/234/2016 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, JSC   I have had a preview while in draft of the Lead Judgement just delivered by my learned brother, Hon. Justice Stephen Jonah Adah, JSC. I agree in its entirety with his reasoning and conclusion, to the effect that the appeal lacks merit and should be penalized with a deserved dismissal. I also dismiss the appeal. I abide by the consequential order made therein regarding the costs.   ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT. APPEARANCES: JIM OKODASO, ESQ., with him, UVIE ORU, ESQ., for the Appellants. ONOME EGBON, ESQ., for the Respondents.