Chukwuma – Machukwu Ume V. Nigerian Copyright Commission (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH E. EKANEM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

The appellant, Chukwuma – Machukwu Ume, was appointed a receiver/liquidator of an insurance company, Fortress Insurance Company Limited (In Liquidation). The winding up of the company was sanctioned by the court.

With leave of court and pursuant to his mandate, the appellant filed a suit on the “Undefended List” on behalf of the company claiming against the respondent as follows;

“(a) The unpaid premium of N801,535.28 by the defendant.

(b) The cost of this suit which is assessed at N300,000.00

(c) Total sum of N1,101,538.28

(d) 20% of the judgment sum until same is paid”.

The suit was initiated at the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division (“the lower court”).

On 5th July, 2007 when the case was scheduled for ruling, the court suo motu raised an issue as to its jurisdiction over the matter and directed the parties to file addresses in that regard. After taking the addresses of counsel on both sides, the lower court in its short ruling concluded as follows;

“The subject matter of suit …… relates to payment of premium, which in itself is contractual.

It has been held that the Federal High Court lacks the jurisdiction to determine issues pertaining to contract… Accordingly this suit is struck out for lack of jurisdiction.”

Aggrieved by the ruling, the appellant has appealed to this Court by way of a notice of appeal bearing four grounds of appeal. The parties filed and exchanged their briefs of arguments which were adopted by counsel on both sides when the appeal came up for hearing on 10th June, 2014.

In the appellant’s brief of argument settled by Innocent M. Njoku, Esq., of counsel, four issues are distilled from the four grounds of appeal for the court’s determination of the appeal. The issues are:

1. Whether the Hon. Trial Court was right to have declined jurisdiction irrespective of the fact that the action is a liquidator’s action and the insurance matter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
2. Whether the Hon. Trial Court was right to have held irrespective of other laws conferring jurisdiction on the Federal High Court over insurance matters, that non-inclusion of insurance, under Section 251(1) (a) – (s) of 1999 Constitution deprived the Federal High Court the jurisdiction to entertain insurance matters?
3. Whether the Hon. Trial Court was right to have held that Section 7 (1) (o) – (s) of the Federal High Court Act as amended by Decree No. 60 of 1999 is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 with regards to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and therefore void.
4. Whether the striking of the matter for lack of jurisdiction was the right decision considering the provision of Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act?

In his brief of argument, Abdul Terkohol Esq; of counsel for the respondent, formulated two issues for the court’s determination of the appeal. The issues are;