Gabisal Nigeria Limited & Anor V. Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (Ndic) (2008)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ADAMU JAURO, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against a part of the ruling of the Federal High Court sitting in Lagos delivered on 11th day of October 2000 by Hon. Justice R. A. Kasim in suit No. FHC/L/FBC/186/99.

The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

The respondent as liquidator of Allied Bank of Nigeria Plc. filed an application in the Lagos Zone of the Failed Banks Tribunal to recover the sum of N10, 612,167.96 with interest, being loan outstanding against the appellant’s granted by the Bank before the revocation of its Banking Licence, The application was filed in the registry of the Tribunal on the 9th February, 1998, under the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Decree No. 18 of 1994 (hereinafter called Failed Banks Decree). Upon the promulgation of the Tribunal (Certain Consequential Amendments, Etc) Decree NO.62 of 1999, pending cases in the Failed Banks Tribunals were transferred to the Federal High Court.

As a consequence of the transfer of this case to the Federal High Court, the appellants filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the action, and urged the court to dismiss same for want of jurisdiction. The preliminary objection was premised on two grounds, namely:-

(1). The Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim and

(2). The plaintiff/respondent has no locus standi to institute and maintain this action.

The preliminary objection was filed on the 3rd day of March, 2000. In its ruling delivered on 13th October, 2000 the court held that the preliminary objection succeeds in part in that the court cannot try civil matters between an individual customer and his bankers arising from ordinary banking transaction based on Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution. The court further held that the respondent has the locus standi to institute the suit under Section 425(1)(a) of Companies and Allied Matters Act and it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter under Section 251 (1)( e) of the 1999 Constitution.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the appellants filed in this appeal against part of the ruling to the effect that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim and the respondent has locus to institute the suit. The notice of appeal dated 28th May, 2001 was filed the same day pursuant to an order of this court for extension of time to appeal granted on 16th May 2001. The notice of appeal was anchored on four grounds, and the said grounds shorn of their particulars are hereby reproduced thus:-

“(1). The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiffs/Respondents claim by virtue of Section 251(1)(e) of the 1999 Constitution.

(2). The learned trial Judge erred in law when he refused or otherwise failed to give effect to the provisions of the TRIBUNALS (CERTAIN CONSEQUEN TRIAL AMENDMENTS ETC) DECREE No. 62 of 1999 (particularly Section 2(i) and (3) which were urged upon the court.

(3). The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the Plaintiff/Respondent has locus standi to institute the suit under Section 425(1)(a) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (Cap. 459) 1990.

(4). The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the Plaintiff/Respondent is not obliged by law to react to sub paragraphs 5(a) and (b) in the Defendants/Applicants supporting affidavit since according to the said teamed trial judge, the contents therein are issues of law”.

In compliance with the rules of this court, briefs were filed and exchanged by the learned counsel representing the parties in this appeal. On the 9th April, 2008 being the date fixed for hearing the appeal, C. C. Dike Esq for the appellant applied to withdraw his reply brief. The said application was granted and the appellant’s reply brief struck out. Thereafter learned counsel identified his appellant brief dated 29th January 2003 and filed on 30th January 2003 and adopted same as his arguments in this appeal. Learned counsel further stated that there are 4 grounds of appeal, out of which 4 issues were distilled and urged the court to allow the appeal. In opposing the appeal, O. J. Kolawole Esq for the respondents adopted his brief of argument dated 16th January, 2004 and filed on 20th January 2004. Learned counsel cited an additional authority in support of his submissions namely NDIC V. OKEM ENTERPRISES LTD & ANOR (2004) All FWLR (Pt. 210) 1176 ratio 6. In concluding learned counsel urged this court to dismiss the appeal of the appellant as lacking in merit.