Chief Eugene Eneh V. Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation & Ors (2018)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Enugu Division, hereinafter referred to as the lower Court, delivered on the 26th January 2006 setting aside the interlocutory decision of the Enugu State High Court, hereinafter referred to as trial Court, dated 6th day of December 2000.

On the 18th day of August 1998 the appellant as plaintiff at the trial Court commenced suit No. E/388/98 against the respondents.

The 1st respondent filed two motions on the 22nd day of September 1998 and 5th day of June 2000 respectively challenging the trial Courts jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The two applications, on being consolidated on the 4th day of October 2000, were argued together. The trial Court in a considered ruling dated 6th of December 2000 dismissed 1st respondents objections to its jurisdiction to hear and determine appellants suit.

Dissatisfied with the decision, the 1st respondent appealed to the lower Court which allowed the appeal and set aside the trial Court’s ruling.

1

Aggrieved by the lower Courts judgment, the appellant has come on appeal against same vide his notice filed on the 8th day of February 2006 containing two grounds.

At the hearing of the appeal on the 9th of April 2018, parties having identified their respective briefs adopted and relied on them as their arguments for and against the appeal.

The 1st respondents Notice of preliminary objection pursuant to Order 2 Rule 9, Order 6 Rule 9 and Order 8 Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules 1999 as amended and Section 241 of the 1999 Constitution filed on 8/2/16 challenging the competence of the appeal has been argued in its brief.

It needs to be considered and determined first. The issue of jurisdiction of Courts, including this one, in relation to what they entertain remains fundamental. It will be a futile exercise for this Court to proceed on a matter without the necessary jurisdiction. See Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ALL NLR (Pt 4) 587 and Galadima V. Tambai (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt 677) 1 SC.

The two issues distilled at paragraph 5 of the 1st respondent’s brief as having arisen for the determination of its preliminary objection are:-

<br< p=””

</br<

2