Facts and Background
On 2nd February 2006, the Federal High Court, Kaduna Judicial Division (the “trial court”) granted the appellant leave to file his suit under the undefended list. The Appellant claimed against the respondent the sum of $2,663,720 (two million, six hundred and sixty-three thousand, seven hundred and twenty United States Dollars) or its Naira equivalent in the sum of N34,172,839.60 (thirty-four million, one hundred and seventy-two thousand, eight hundred and thirty-nine Naira, sixty Kobo) being the appellant’s legal fees for legal services he rendered to the respondent and for the estacode allowance. The appellant also sought interest of the legal fees with effect from the date of the judgement until the entire sum is liquidated.
The respondent, despite being served with the originating process, did not file a notice of intention to defend at all times when the suit came up for hearing. Consequently, the trial court entered judgement for the appellant and against the respondent.
The respondent, who was aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, appealed to the Court of Appeal (the “lower court”) on the ground that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the suit since it was one for recovery of professional fees. On 12th July 2006, the lower court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to determine the case and, thereafter, nullified the entire proceedings before the trial court.
The decision informed the appeal by the appellant to the Supreme Court on 23rd November 2017.
Issues for Determination
The appellant and respondent formulated similar issues for determination in their briefs of argument. The two issues raised for determination are:
(a) whether having regard to s. 251(1)(p) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (the “Constitution”) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit?; and
(b) if the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the Appellant’s suit, whether the lower court was right in refusing and/or failing to transfer the suit to the appropriate court for determination?
Arguments of Counsel
In his submission on the first issue, the appellant stated that s. 251(1)(p) of the constitution relates to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court over matters pertaining to the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. The appellant contended that his suit before the trial court was for payment for services rendered to secure and release the respondent’s vessel MV Abuja which was arrested in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and that the respondent is an agency of the Federal Government, which was therefore a matter to be solely heard and determined by the Federal High Court. On the second issue, the appellant argued that from the provision of s. 22 of the Federal High Court Act 2004, the Federal High Court has power to transfer any cause or matter it has no jurisdiction to try to the court with competent jurisdiction.
He canvassed the point that the lower court was wrong to have refused to transfer the suit to the High Court despite the general power of the Court of Appeal under s. 15 of the Court of Appeal Act 2004, which empowers the Court of Appeal to transfer cases filed at the Federal High Court which ought to have been brought before the High Court of a State or the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The appellant relied on Mokelu v. Federal Commissioner for Works and Housing on the point that the power to transfer the suit to a court with jurisdiction is obligatory and not discretionary.
In reaction, counsel for the respondent argued on the first issue that from paragraph 2 of the appellant’s affidavit in support of the writ on the undefended list, the appellant confirmed the status of the respondent as “a public limited company” and not a Federal Government Agency; therefore, not falling under s. 251(1)(p) of the Constitution. It was argued for the respondent that by the provisions of s. 16(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1975 (as amended 2014), the High Court of a State is the court with jurisdiction to entertain claims for debt arising from a simple contract, and the mere fact that an agency of the Federal Government is a party to a suit, without more, is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Federal High Court, since the subject matter of the suit must be taken into consideration: Oduah v. Okadigbo. On the second issue, it was submitted that the lower court was not obliged to transfer the matter to the State High Court, and that the appellant had not met any of the conditions required to warrant the invocation of s. 22 of the Supreme Court Act, as prayed by the appellant.
