First Bank Of Nigeria Plc. v. Standard Polyplastic Industires Limited (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

The respondents herein commenced an action at the High Court of Abia State (hereinafter, simply, referred to as the “trial court”). In the writ of summons, they sought the following reliefs against the appellant:

1. An order for refund to the plaintiff of the unremitted USD 134,580 in respect of letters of credit (L/C) Nos. 330/83/11/1D (USD 129,150.00) and 330/83/21/1D (USD 5,430.00) which the defendant procured from the Central Bank of Nigeria on behalf of the claimant for remittance to claimant’s customer, Bramchas Trading Company, London, for supply of goods to the claimant, which the defendant failed to remit to the said Bramchas Trading Company, London;
2. USD 5,439,044.14, being interest from 30/5/83 to 31/8/13 on the said unremitted USD 134,580.00 which the defendant failed to remit to the claimant’s said customers as aforesaid but rather employed same in its banking transactions;
3. Interest at the rate of 12% on the said USD 134,580.00 from September, 2013 till judgment is delivered in this case; and
4. Interest on the judgment debt in this case at the rate of 12% per annum till judgment debts is liquidated by the defendant.

Pleadings were filed and exchanged. The appellant then filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court. It prayed that the suit be dismissed on the grounds that it was statute-barred and the respondent lacked the locus standi to bring such an action.

By a ruling delivered on October 27th, 2014, the trial court dismissed the said preliminary objection. It held that that “exhibit CM” had revived the respondents’ cause of action.

The matter proceeded to trial on November 9th, 2015. The parties testified. Counsel delivered their final addresses. The trial court, by its judgment delivered on July 22nd, 2016, found in favour of the respondent. It granted reliefs 1 and 2 as prayed for by the respondent.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the appellant, by an amended notice of appeal, appealed to the Court of Appeal, (subsequently, referred to as the (“Lower court”). In its judgment, delivered on March 23rd, 2018, the lower court affirmed the decision of the trial court, consequently dismissing the appeal.

The appellant is still aggrieved, hence its appeal to this court. The notice of appeal, which was filed on April 30th, 2018, contains twenty grounds of appeal, from which the appellant formulated the following six issues for determination:

1. Was the court below right when it upheld the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the respondent’s suit and also failed to consider the appellant’s contention that the subject matter of the suit was beyond the scope of the substantive jurisdiction of the trial court?
2. Was the court below right when it held that the trial court rightly admitted and relied on inadmissible evidence, that is, exhibits “CA” (and the annexures thereto), “CC”, “CD” and also relied on the same in dismissing the appellant’s appeal on the grounds that, inter alia, the appellant did not at the trial court object to their admissibility?
3. Was the court below right when it held that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence before it and thus, rightly came to the conclusion that the Central Bank of Nigeria allocated foreign exchange to the appellant to cover the respondent’s letters of credit?
4. Was the court below right when it upheld the award of the respondent’s claims in United States dollars by the trial court?
5. Was the court below right when it upheld the interest awarded to the respondent by the trial court?
6. Whether the judgment of the court below is not against the weight of evidence?

The respondent, also, formulated six issues for determination, to wit:

1. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they upheld the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the respondent’s suit?
2. Whether the court below was right when it held that the trial court rightly admitted and relied on exhibits “CA” “CC” and “CD” which were pleaded and relied upon by both parties and tendered without objection?
3. Whether the court below rightly held that the trial court properly evaluated the evidence adduced by the parties and came to the conclusion that the Central Bank of Nigeria approved and allocated foreign exchange for the transaction?
4. Whether the court below rightly upheld the award of the respondent’s claim in the United States dollars by the trial court?
5. Whether the court below rightly upheld the interest awarded to the respondent by the trial court?
6. Whether the judgment of the court below is against the weight of evidence?

These issues formulated by the respondent are unnecessary. I make bold to say that the said issues are one and the same with those of the appellant. The only differences are the wordings and the way they were couched. Since the appellant had, adequately, captured the issues from its grounds of appeal, the respondent should have simply adopted same.

Upon my intimate reading of the issues formulated by the appellant, I find that issues Nos. 1 and 5, are actually determinative of this appeal. This court is at liberty to adopt any of the issues for determination as formulated by counsel for the parties, Federal Housing Authority & Anor. v. A.A. Kalejaiye (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 147, Tunbi v. Opawole (2000) 4 WRN 44; (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 644) 275, Okonji v. Njokanma (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 202) 131, Anyaduba v N.R.T.C Ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 243) 535. I hereby adopt issues No. 1 and 5 in the resolution of this appeal. For completeness, I will reproduce the issues for determination, hereunder:

1. Was the court below right when it upheld the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the respondent’s suit and also failed to consider the appellant’s contention that the subject matter of the suit was beyond the scope of the substantive jurisdiction of the trial court?
2. Was the court below right when it upheld the interest awarded to the respondent by the trial court?

Now, to the issues.

Issue one

1. Was the court below right when it upheld the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine the respondent’s suit and also failed to consider the appellant’s contention that the subject matter of the suit was beyond the scope of the substantive jurisdiction of the trial court?

The crux of this issue is the question whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the respondent’s suit having regard to the subject matter of the suit, time-limitation and locus standi of the respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the subject matter of the suit was outside the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. He cited C.G.G (Nig.) Ltd. v. Aminu (2016) 44 WRN 35; (2015) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1459) 577, 593, C – E, Madukolu v Nkemdilim (2001) 46 WRN 1; (1962) 2 SCNLR 342, Western Steel Works Ltd. v. Iron and Steel Workers Union of Nigeria (2004) 7 WRN 58; (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 30) 617, Ugwanyi v. Nicon Ins. Plc. (2021) 13 WRN 1; (2013) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1366) 546, 605, E – F.