Skye Bank Plc V. Victor Anaemem Iwu (2017)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C.

My Lords, the proximate impulsion to this matter was an order of the Court of Appeal (hereinafter, simply, referred to as “the Lower Court”) contained in its Ruling of November 11, 2014. The said Ruling was sequel to a Motion on Notice of September 24, 2014 wherein the appellant implored it [that is, the Lower Court] to state a case for this Court in view of the constitutional issues and substantial points of law which arose before it.

The Lower Court’s triadic formulations were expressed in these terms:

(1) Whether the Court of Appeal as an appellate Court created by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) has the jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court of law in Nigeria to hear and determine all appeals arising from the decisions of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria

(2) Whether there exists any constitutional provision which expressly divested the Court of Appeal of its appellate jurisdiction over all decisions on civil matters emanating from the National Industrial Court of Nigeria

(3) Whether

1

the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to hear civil appeals from the decisions of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria is limited to only questions of Fundamental rights

Pursuant to the Rules of this Court, counsel for the parties filed and exchanged their briefs of arguments. At the hearing of this matter on April 3, 2017, Dr. Charles D. Mekwunye, learned counsel for the appellant, adopted the brief of argument filed on December 11, 2015 and the Reply brief filed on December 16, 2015. On his part, Fes Eze Eke, for the respondent, adopted the brief of argument filed on December 14, 2015.

As a preliminary point, I agree with the observation of counsel for the respondent that “the three questions [above] appear to be similar and a repetition of one another,” [paragraph 2.1, page 5 of the Respondent’s brief].

In the exercise of this Court’s undoubted prerogative to prune down and accentuate, issues in the interest of clarity and brevity, I have taken the liberty to isolate the first question as truly, determinative of the Trinitarian formulations of the Lower Court, Okoro v The State (1988) 12 SC 191; (1988) 12 SCNJ 191; Unity Bank

2

Plc and Anor v. Bouari (2008) LPELR -3411 (SC) 21-22; A-B; Musaconi Ltd v. Aspinall (2013) LPELR-20745 (SC) 6-7; I.T.I.V. Ltd and Anor v. Anyesom Community Bank Ltd (2015) LPELR-24819 (SC) 20; B-D.

I must quickly, point out that the said issue is, sufficiently, commodious such that it embraces the other outstanding two issues in its canopied ambience. Accordingly, the only issue that calls for the decisive response of this Court is the catholic question couched thus: