Progressive Insurance Co. Ltd V Mrs. M.T. Adepoju (1990)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

AGORO, J.C.A.

This appeal has again raised the vexed problem regarding the scope of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in relation to the State High Courts. The facts of the case before the Federal High Court, Ibadan were that the respondent as plaintiff insured her Santana LX Saloon Car registration No. OY 620 MN for N11 ,000.00 with the defendant/appellant on 29th October, 1984. It was a comprehensive insurance for the period 29th October, 1984 to 28th October, 1985, for which a premium of N814.00 was paid to the said insurance company.

A cover note No.036336 was later issued to the plaintiff /respondent for the period 8th November, 1985 to 7th December, 1985. And on or about 16th November, 1985 a premium of N732.60 was paid to cover the second year of insurance from 8th November, 1985 to 7th November, 1986 both dates inclusive. The vehicle was involved in an accident on 23rd November, 1985, and a claim of N11,000.00 was presented to the insurance company because the vehicle was said to have been damaged beyond repairs. Apart from denying liability for the claim, the defendant/appellant averred in the statement of defence that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Upon a motion on notice brought under Order 33, Rule 7 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 1976, the defendant/appellant sought to set aside the writ of summons and its service for lack of jurisdiction. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, Okuribido, J. (now retired) overruled the objection to the jurisdiction of the court. The learned trial Judge then proceeded to take evidence, and at the conclusion of the hearing judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent in the sum of 0 N6,892.15. The present appeal is against the said judgment, and the main complaint of the defendant/appellant was that the learned trial Judge erred in law to have adjudicated on the claim when he had no jurisdiction.

As it happened, the only issue for determination as formulated in the appellants Brief of Argument, is whether or not the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to sit over the claim which is purely that of an insured and insurer in view of the provisions of the laws setting out the courts jurisdiction. The respondents Brief of Argument also agrees that the main issue for determination is whether or not the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate over the claim of the plaintiff which is an insurance claim.

The only subsidiary issue raised by the respondent relates to the consequential order to be made if the appeal succeeds on the issue of jurisdiction. It was submitted in the appellants Brief that having regard to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as contained in Section 7 of the Federal High Court Act. 1973, as well as Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the subject-matter of the suit before the lower court is not a matter which falls under those provisions. It was also submitted that a claim purely between an insured and an insurer, such as in this appeal, where the Federal Government does not have the slightest interest, is not a matter to be instituted in and adjudicated upon by the Federal High Court.

Accordingly, it was submitted that the proceedings before Okunribido, J. in the court below were conducted without jurisdiction and were consequently null and void. The cases of Jammal Steel Structures Ltd. v. African Continental Bank Ltd. (1973) 1 All N. L. R. (Pt, 11) 208; Bronik Motors Lid, v. Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 1 SCNLR 296 and Eze v. The Republic (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.51) 506 were cited in the appellants Brief of Argument.

The position of the respondent as contained in the Brief of Argument is a challenge to the appellants argument that the true object and purpose of the Federal High Court Act, 1973 is the more expeditious despatch of revenue cases, particularly those relating to the revenue of the Federal Government of Nigeria.

In this connection, reference was made to the case of American International Insurance Company v. Ceekay Traders (1981) 1 All N.L.R. (Pt. 1) 58, where the Supreme Court of Nigeria held, inter alia, that since the commencement of the Federal High Court Act. 1971, admiralty jurisdiction has been vested in the Federal High Court to the exclusion of all the High Courts of the States in the Federation. The decision in the case of Jammal Steel Structures Co. Ltd. v. A.C.B. Ltd. (supra) was distinguished and reviewed by the Supreme Court. It was also contended by the respondent that unless the jurisdiction of a superior court is ousted by statutory provisions either expressly or by necessary implication, the presumption is that it can entertain any legal dispute that comes before it. The case of Timitimi v. Amabebe (1953) 14 W.A.C.A.374 at 376 was cited in support.

It was further contended by the respondent that since the defendant/appellant is a limited liability company carrying on the business of an insurer throughout Nigeria with its head office at Akure, it falls within the provision of Section 7(1)(c)(i) of the Federal High Court Act, 1973, and that the Federal High Court has and can exercise jurisdiction in civil cases and matters arising from the operation of the said company. The respondent has drawn attention to Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as well as sections 42(1)(2),237(1)(2) and 274 thereof relating to fundamental rights enforcement provisions, election petitions in respect of the offices of the President and Vice-President; while section 274 deals with existing laws.

As regards the case of Bronik Motors v. Wema Bank Ltd. (supra) cited by the appellant, the respondent submitted that the Supreme Court of Nigeria decided the case on its peculiar facts and also that if the opportunity arises the Supreme Court wil1 extend its scope beyond sections 21(1),49(1) and 62 of the Insurance Act, No. 59 of 1976. And with reference to the case of Eze v. The Republic (supra), the respondent is content to adopt the observation of Karibi­ Whyte, J .S.C. at pages 506, 522 and 523. Finally, the respondent urged this court to affirm the judgment of the lower court and also to dismiss the appeal.

In the alternative, if this court allows the appeal, then the case should be sent to the Federal High Court for onward transmission to Oyo State High Court, Ibadan in accordance with the provisions of section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act, 1973 and Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court (Amendment) Act No.36 of 1975. This courts attention has been drawn to the cases of Mokelu v. Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing (1976) 1 NMLR 329 at 333; (1976) 1 All NLR (Pt. 1) 276 at 283 and Aluminium Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Nigerian Ports Authority (1987) 1 NWLR (PI.51) 475 at 489. In the appellants Reply Brief, it was submitted that the decision in American International Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ceekay Traders Ltd. (supra) upon which heavy reliance was placed by the respondent had since been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Savannah Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Pan Atlantic Shipping and Transport Agencies Ltd. & Anor. (1987).1 NWLR (Pt.49) 212 at 265.

On the respondents alternative proposal that if the appeal succeeds on the issue of jurisdiction, then the case should be sent to the Federal High Court with an order to transfer the case to Oyo State High Court, the appellant contends that the proper order to make is to strike out the action. I should point out that it would serve no useful purpose for me to reopen and dwell on the civil jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as contained in the Briefs of Argument filed in this appeal because the Supreme Court of Nigeria had dealt with such matter in a number of cases. See Bronik Motors Ltd. v. Werna Bank Ltd. (supra); American International Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ceekay Traders Ltd. (supra) and Eze v. The Republic (supra).

It seems to me that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear and determine a case depends on the nature of the claim before the court as revealed on the writ of summons and the Statement of Claim. See Western Steel Works Ltd. & Anor. v. Iron & Steel Workers Union of Nigeria & Anor. (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.49) 284; Stallion Manufacturing & Marketing Co. Ltd. v. Stallion Fisheries Ltd. (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt.157) 501; Ruling by OpeAghe, J., Lagos State Judiciary in Mr. Ahmed Lame (Deputy Superintendent of Police) v. Inspector-General of Police & Ors. in Suit No.M/680/89 delivered on Friday, July 12, 1990 and reported in The Guardian Newspaper, Wednesday, November 14, 1990 at page 19.