Haruna S. Usman v. Nigerian Unity Line Plc. (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division, delivered on the 7th day of May, 2013 in appeal number CA/K/261/2007.

In brief, the appellant in this appeal approached the Federal High Court, Kaduna Judicial Division (the “trial court”) vide a motion ex-parte dated the 23rd day of January, 2006 seeking to sue the respondent under the undefended list, praying the court for the following reliefs:

1. “An order of court granting leave to the applicant to file this suit under the undefended list.
2. An order marking the writ of summons accordingly.
3. And such further order(s) as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.”

The motion was supported by 11-paragraph affidavit, deposed to by the appellant. On the 2nd day of February, 2006, the trial court granted leave to the appellant to file the suit under the undefended list.

In the suit, the appellant claimed, the sum of $2663,720 or its naira equivalent of 172, 833.60, being the appellants legal fees in respect of the legal services rendered to the respondent and the estacode allowance, and 10% interest thereon from the date of the Judgment until the entire sum is liquidated. After granting leave to the appellant, the respondent was duly served all processes in line with the order of the trial court.

The matter came up for hearing several times before the trial court and the respondent failed to file notice of intention to defend pursuant to order 24 rule 3 (1) of the Federal High Court Civil procedure Rules.

The learned trial Judge became satisfied that the respondent had no intention to defend the action, judgment was therefore accordingly entered by the court as per the claim of the appellant against the respondent.

The judgment delivered by the trial court did not go down well with the respondent, who initiated an appeal at the lower court via a notice of appeal dated the 12th day of July, 2006.

The appeal was heard and determined by the lower court; the lower court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and therefore declared the whole proceedings a nullity. In effect the decision of the trial court was set aside.

The decision of the lower court miffed the appellant who consequently filed notice of appeal to this court on the 23rd day of November, 2017 containing three (3) grounds of appeal.

Learned senior counsel, Tawo E. Tawo SAN, prepared and filed the appellant’s brief of argument on the 2nd day of July, 2018, the said brief of argument was deemed as properly filed and served on the 20th day of March, 2019. In the appellants brief of argument, counsel nominated and argued two (2) issues for determination. The issues are therefore reproduced as follows:

1. “Whether having regard to the Constitutional provisions of section 251 (1) (p), (q) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s case. (Ground 1 and 2)
2. Whether if the trial Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determined the appellant’s suit the Court of Appeal was right in refusing and or failing to transfer the suit to the appropriate court for determination. (Ground 3).

The learned counsel for the respondents, Darlington Onyekwere, filed the respondent’s brief of argument on the 28th day of March, 2022. The respondent’s brief of argument was deemed as properly filed and served on the 28th day of September, 2022. Two (2) issues were nominated for discourse, they are also reproduced as follows:

1. “Whether in view of section 251 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), the Court of Appeal was right in setting aside the judgment of the trial court for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal in the circumstances of this case was under any obligation to transfer the appellant’s suit to the High Court upon holding that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain same.”

Submissions of counsel for the appellant

Issue one