Adeoye Magbagbeola V. Temitope Sanni (2005)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KATSINA-ALU, J.S.C.

The respondent Temitope Sanni who was the claimant in the Lagos State High Court had on 28th March, 2000 brought an application pursuant to section 7(2) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act Cap. 19 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 for the appointment of a sole arbitrator pursuant to clause 17 of the Partnership Agreement dated 7th November, 1999 which is in the following terms:

“All disputes between the partners in relationship to any matter whatsoever touching the partnership affairs or the construction of this agreement whether before or after the determination of the partnership shall be referred to an arbitrator.”

The appellant Adeoye Magbagbeola who was the respondent in that court filed a notice of preliminary objection on 22nd May, 2000 challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State to entertain the matter on the following grounds:

“(i) The originating summons is to appoint an arbitrator over a dispute purportedly concerning the running of Commerce Lords Nigeria Ltd. A company incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990.

(ii) This honourable court has no jurisdiction to entertain matters touching and concerning the running and sharing of profits of companies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990.”

On the 14th of July, 2000, the learned trial Judge, in a considered ruling dismissed the preliminary objection and upheld the contention of the claimant/respondent that the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. In the course of his ruling the learned trial Judge held as follows:

“In this preliminary objection arguments of counsel call for the examination of the provisions of sections 251(1) (e) and 272(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

In the substantive suit the applicant seeks by way of origination summons an order of this court that some fit and proper person be appointed to act as sole arbitrator pursuant to section 17 of the agreement between the parties dated 7/11/99.

Now section 251(1) of the Constitution states that:

‘Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil courses (sic) or matters.

(e) arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act or any other enactment replacing that Act or regulating the operation of companies incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act.

While section 272 (1) supra states that: –

“Subject to the provisions of section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court of a state shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue …”