Geomek Nigeria Limited V. Alhaji Senator Salisu Musa Matori (2002)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
MURITALA AREMU OKUNOLA, J.C.A.
This is an appeal against the ruling of the High Court Kwara State sitting at Ilorin delivered by FOLAYAN J.
The facts of this case briefly put were as follows:
The Appellant herein as Plaintiff sued the Respondent herein as Defendant at the High Court (hereinafter referred to as the Lower Court).
The Plaintiff (hereinafter called the Appellant) claimed in his Writ of Summons a sum of Twenty seven million six hundred and seventeen thousand and fifty two Naira, fourteen kobo (N27, 617,052.14k) being debt owed the plaintiff (on the Bauchi State Government water project awarded to the Plaintiff but executed by the Defendant) which debt the defendant has refused, failed and neglected to pay despite repeated demands.” (See page 2 of the records).
The application for issuance and service of the writ outside jurisdiction was made and granted and the Respondent was served at Abuja where he is normally resident and doing business.
The Appellant filed and served his statement of claim and the Defendant filed his statement of defence and, indeed, counter claimed. The appellant filed a reply and defence to the statement of defence and counter-claim (please, see pages 7-11 and 12-13 ,of the records).
The appellant’s Managing Director gave evidence as PW1 and the case was adjourned for cross examination. On 7th October, 1999 the defendant changed his counsel. The new counsel instead of continuing trial and cross examination filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the State High Court. (See page 14) to hear and determine the matter.
The learned trial Judge after hearing arguments by defendant’s counsel on the preliminary objection ruled that the claim of the plaintiff was not for a simple debt and therefore struck out the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellant appealed to this Court on four grounds. From these four grounds the appellant formulated an only issue for determination in this appeal with which the Respondent agreed viz:-
“Whether the learned trial Judge was correct when she held that the plaintiff’s claim was more than a claim for debt and that the High Court of Kwara State had no jurisdiction.”
The Respondent also formulated an only issue which but for style in drafting is similar to the one formulated supra by the appellant. This is:
“Whether from the totality of the appellant’s writ of summons, statement of claim and the testimony of PW1, Kwara State High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the Suit”
Both learned counsel to the parties filed their respective briefs of arguments on behalf of their clients. On 29/10/2002 when this appeal came up for hearing both learned counsel to the parties addressed and relied on their briefs and went further to address us viva voce to highlight some points. Learned Counsel to the Appellant Mr. Roland Otaru leading O. Babaniyi Esquire adopted and relied on the appellant’s brief filed herein on 4/3/02 and urged the Court to allow the appeal. By way of reply, learned counsel to the Respondent Mr. Garba Hassan adopted and relied on the Respondent’s brief filed herein On 23/5/02 and urged the Court to dismiss the appeal. By way of further reply, the learned counsel to the Appellant said he had nothing to add.
I have considered the submissions made by both learned counsel to the parties both orally and in their briefs of argument viz-a-viz the records and the prevailing law. It is clear that their argument boil down on the sale issue as to whether Or not the Kwara State High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in controversy. Both learned counsel on this sole issue had proferred argument orally and in their briefs in support of their different views on this issue. By way of summary learned counsel to the appellant at pages 7 and 8 of appellant’s brief submitted that the learned trial judge erroneously struck out the suit for absence of jurisdiction because the claim of the plaintiff/appellant was for a certain sum due upon agreement between parties.
The contract between the plaintiff/appellant and the Bauchi State Government was not in dispute before the Court, after all, Bauchi State Government was not a party. Almost all debts, due, must arise from a contractual relationship, debt as a cause of action is distinct. The law is that it is the duty of the debtor to seek his creditor with a view to paying him. Debt can therefore be claimed at “the county or realm” where the creditor is resident.
By way of reply, learned counsel to the respondent submitted by way of summary on pages 2 & 3”of the Respondent’s brief that since the defendant lives and carries out his business in Bauchi where the cause of action arose, consequently the Kwara State High Court lacks jurisdiction to determine and hear the case whether a contract, debt or whatever. He cited Order 10 Rules 1 and 4 of the Kwara State High Court Civil Procedure Rules to support this contention. Both learned counsel to the parties cited various judicial authorities to back their contention.
I have considered the submissions of both learned counsel to the parties on this sole issue viz-a-viz the records and the prevailing law. To determine which of the two positions canvassed by both learned counsel is to be followed a short recourse to the facts of the case will be necessary. From the endorsement on the writ of Summons at page 2 of the records and paragraph 3 of the statement of claim at page 4 of the records, the testimony of PW1 at pages 20-21 of the records where he said in paragraphs 5-7 “1 know the defendant in this case, he is my friend and a businessman too, he lives in Bauchi (conts) on paragraph 9).”
The above coupled with paragraphs 7 and 8 of the statement of claim at page 5 of the records all go to show clearly that the cause of action whether a contract or whatever arose in Bauchi State. What is more the defendant lives and carries on his own business in Bauchi. Against this background it will be necessary to consider the provisions of Order 10 Rules 1 and 4 of the Kwara State High Court Civil Procedure Rules which excludes the jurisdiction of Kwara State High Court to hear a case whether a contract, debt Or Whatever Where the cause of action arose outside Kwara State. These Rules came for consideration and was given judicial confirmation in the celebrated case of A-G KWARA STATE V. OLAWALE (1993) I NWLR (Part 272) 645 per Karibi-Whyte JSC at paragraph D-E of page 674 thus,
“A High Court is a Court of unlimited jurisdiction. But the jurisdiction exercised can be regulated by the restriction of its plenitude either in terms of subject matter, in terms of the damages in civil causes or the punishment it can impose in a criminal matter. Indeed its jurisdiction can be ousted by statute, by the Constitution as submitted in this case either as to subject matter of the cause of action or as to the person who can bring the action.”
See also IKIMI V, TELL COMMUNICATION LTD 2001 Vol. Edo HICLR which is of persuasive authority.
It is in the light of the Supreme Court authority of A-G KWARA STAE V. OLAWALE SUPRA that the jurisdiction of the Kwara State High Court is limited or ousted where the defendant resides or carries on business outside Kwara State or where the Cause of action arose outside Kwara State as in the instant case. This is provided for in Order 10 Rules 1 and 4(1) of the Kwara State High Court Civil Procedure Rules which provide thus,
ORDER 10:
Rule 1: All suits relating to land or any mortgage or charge thereon Or any other interest therein or for any interest thereto, and also all actions relating to personal property distrained or ceased for any cause shall be commenced in the judicial division in which the land is situated or the distress or service took place.
RULE 4(1):
All other suits shall be commenced and determined in the judicial division in which the defendant resides or carries on business or in which the cause of action arose. ”
It needs to be pointed out here that such rules of Court like any other law are made to be followed, obeyed and they bind the parties or litigants before the Court. See: AJAYI V. OMOROGBE (1992) 7 SCNJ page 168 p. 169.
In the light of the foregoing authorities, the Lower Court was right in striking out the matter by curtailing the unlimited jurisdiction of the High Court due to geographical location of states moreso when the Court by its rules is deprived of jurisdiction in the matter. The law is that a court of law is only competent to adjudicate over a matter before it if and only if it has jurisdiction to do so, that is when it has jurisdiction over the subject matter etc. which is not the case in the instant matter. In the light of the foregoing authorities, I resolve the sole issue in favour of the Respondent as the Rules of Court seems to support the ruling of the Lower Court.
In sum, this appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. The Ruling of the Lower Court is hereby affirmed.
Other Citations: (2002)LCN/1316(CA)
