Hajia Umma Muktar Ahmed Mohammed vs Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation, Judgment Delivered by Stephen Jonah Adah, JSC, In SC/958/2015

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 this case. The current disposition of this Court, as is reflected in the recent decisions earlier cited, is in sync with the original provisions and intendment of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. The requirement of Section 97 calling for endorsement of court processes before they are served in other states of the Federation has no application to the Federal High Court.

From these brief comments and the elaborate reasons advanced in the lead judgment of my learned brother, I concur that this appeal lacks merit and it is also dismissed by me. I abide by all the consequential orders therein made.

STEPHEN JONAH ADAH

JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT