Integrated Timber & Plywood Products Ltd. V. Union Bank Nigeria Plc (2006)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

OGBUAGU, J.S.C.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Benin division, delivered on 12th July, 2000 setting aside the ruling of Abutu, J of the Federal High Court and ordering the transfer of the substantive suit to the Delta State High Court for hearing and determination.

The appellant claimed in the writ of summons taken out on 10th October, 1996, as follows:

“The defendant which carries on banking business nationwide has offices in Benin within the jurisdiction of this honourable court.

Sometime in 1990, the defendant while carrying on its banking business forwarded to the plaintiff an irrevocable documentary letter of Credit No. K16167/65626 established in Belgium and by a letter dated 12/10/90 the defendant advised and confirmed the authenticity of the letter of credit. Pursuant 10 the defendant advices and confirmation the plaintiff adopted the letter of credit and exported Iroko furniture components worth M28527 to one C.J.E DUB105

STOCKMANIVS in Belgium. Inspite of repeated demand (sic) plaintiff has received no payment for its goods.

Wherefore the plaintiff claim against the defendant the sum of N120,000.000.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Million Naira) as special and general damages for breach of contract and or negligent Misstatement”. [the italics mine]

I note that the appellant, in reproducing the above claim in the brief of argument, “deliberately” or “inadvertently” omitted the concluding words – i.e. “for breach of contract and or negligent misstatement”. In the respondent’s brief, the whole claim was correctly reproduced except the word “demand” which both parties typed as “demands”.

The appellant later filed a statement of claim on 18th February, 1997. The respondent upon being served with the same filed a motion on notice on 24th March, 1997, praying for, “An order dismissing and or striking out the suit on the grounds (sic) that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit”.

The learned trial Judge, after hearing arguments from both learned counsel for the parties, in a considered ruling delivered on 7th July, 1997, dismissed the said motion, and held that the suit was/is one within the admiralty jurisdiction of the court. Said he: in his conclusion,

“In the result I hold that the suit is one within the admiralty jurisdiction of this court. The court therefore has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The objection is overruled and the motion is hereby dismissed”.

Dissatisfied, the respondent successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal (hereinafter called “the court below”) which on 12th July, 2000 unanimously allowed the appeal. The appellant being aggrieved by the said decision has now appealed to this court on two (2) grounds of appeal. Without their particulars, they read as follows –

“The learned Justices having rightly referred to the claim and statement of claim erred in law in holding:

“Taking into consideration the two definition above, it cannot be disputed that the dispute that gave rise to this action falls within the confine of the relationship between a bank and customer in which case, the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court has been ousted by the proviso to paragraph (d) of section 230 (1) of the 1979 Constitution as amended by Decree 107 of 1993”.