Hassan Garba V. Musa Lawan Birniwa & Anor (2013)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This is an appeal against an interlocutory Ruling of Kano State High Court, delivered by Hon. Justice M. H. Abdullahi on 4/5/2010, in Suit NO. K/88/1995.

The 2nd Respondent (NDIC- Liquidator Premier Bank PLC) and the Appellant had filed applications before the Lower Court on 17/8/2006, and 9/11/2006, respectively, seeking the striking out of the Suit (K/88/1995) for want of jurisdiction. The 1st Respondent, who was the plaintiff in the action, filed Counter affidavits on 8/11/2006 and 15/11/2006, in response to the two applications, respectively. Arguments were taken in both applications on 15/11/2006 and in its ruling, on 4/5/2010, the learned trial Court dismissed the applications, saying:

“On the issue of jurisdiction of Federal High Court in relation to this matter, since the Company referred to in Section 417 of CAMA has not been shown to be party to this case, this court has jurisdiction, moreover the issue of the 2nd defendant being made a party to the plaintiff’s case (sic) of the 1st defendant using his title documents illegally to secure a loan from the Defliunct Premier Bank PLC, to which the 2nd defendant is now the successor, makes the issue of application of section 251(1) of the constitution in relation to exclusivity of the Federal High Court jurisdiction clearly inapplicable here, as the exception provided in the provision to paragraph 251(1) (p) (q) and (r) of 1999 constitution clearly given the case at hand. In the end I hold that the entire two Notices of Preliminary objection lack merit and are hereby dismissed in their entirety;”

Appellant filed Notice of this appeal on 25/10/2011 with the leave of this Court granted on 20/10/2011. He filed amended Notice of Appeal on 18/12/2012 and disclosed 3 grounds of appeal as follows:

“GROUND ONE

The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that he has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

PARTICULARS

1. The Appellant filed an application dated 17th August, 2006 before the trial court seeking the leave of the trial court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.

2. Arguments were taken in respect of the said application on the 15th of November, 2006.

3. The crux of the Appellant’s argument at the trial court was that the 2nd Respondent (2nd Defendant at the lower court), trial is NDIC is an agency of the Federal Government and thus the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain same.

4. Despite the Appellant’s argument the trial court ruled finally on the 4th of May, 2010 that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

GROUND TWO

The learned trial judge erred in law when he delved into the substantive matter at the hearing of the 1st Defendant’s motion on notice dated 17th August, 2006, when he held thus “moreover, the issue of the 2nd Defendant being made a party to the Plaintiff’s case of the 1st Defendant using his title documents illegally to secure a loan from the defunct Premier Bank Plc, to which the 2nd Defendant is now a successor makes the issue of application of section 251(1) in relation to exclusivity clearly inapplicable here as the exception provided in the proviso to paragraph 251 (p) (q) and (r) of the 1999 constitution clearly govern the case at hand”