Shittu V. Nigerian Agricultural & Cooperative Bank Limited & Ors (2000)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

OBADINA, J.C.A.

This is an interlocutory appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Kano Division delivered on the 6th day of August, 1997. The 1st Respondent as plaintiff before the Federal High Court, Kano Division claimed in its writ of summons as follows:-

A declaration that the action of the defendants in closing and sealing of offices of the plaintiff at Dutse and Hadejia is an unauthorized method of enforcing tax liabilities if any of the plaintiff and therefore illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.

(ii) An injunction restraining the defendants, privies or whosoever acting on their instruction from sealing and closing the offices of the plaintiff in purported enforcing of alleged tax liabilities of the plaintiff to the defendant.”

The 1st Respondent as plaintiff also filed along with the writ of summons a motion on notice dated 13th May, 1997 praying for the following orders:-

“(i) An order of mandatory injunction directing the defendants, their servants, agents or privies by whatever description to open and unseal the premises of the plaintiffs branch offices located at No. 1A, Nguru Road, Hadejia and Kiyawa Road, Dutse, Jigawa State pending the hearing and determination of this suit.

(2) An order of injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, or privies however described from continuing to seal or close the offices of the plaintiff at No.1A, Nguru Road, Hadejia and Kiyawa Road, Dutse, in Jigawa State pending the hearing and determination of this suit.

(3) And such further or other orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.”

The motion was moved and argued by the parties and the learned trial Judge on the 20th of May, 1997 granted both mandatory and interlocutory orders against the defendants, their servants, agents or privies in respect of the sealing off or closing down of the offices of the plaintiff/respondent. After being served with the orders, the 3rd defendant now the Appellant, filed a motion on notice dated 11/6/97 praying the court as follows:-

(i) An order striking out the plaintiff’s claim for want of jurisdiction;

(ii) An order discharging the order of interlocutory injunction granted on 20th of May, 1997; and (iii) An order awarding damages to the defendants.

The motion was heard by the learned trial Judge. In his ruling, the learned trial Judge dismissed the application of the 3rd defendant/appellant and held that he had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The 3rd defendant/appellant was not satisfied with the decision and therefore, he appealed to this Court.

The appellant filed two (2) grounds of appeal from which he formulated only one issue for determination. The issue reads as follows:-

“Whether the Federal High Court, Kano Division can properly assume jurisdiction as it did over the plaintiff/respondent’s claim which bothers on Personal Income Tax as a revenue accruable to Jigawa State Government in view of the combined provisions of the Personal Income Tax Decree No. 104 of 1993 and the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993?”