Introduction
This assignment addresses several key issues regarding judicial jurisdiction within the Nigerian legal system. The division of power between the Federal High Court and State High Courts is a recurring theme in Nigerian constitutional law, often leading to complex jurisdictional disputes. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) attempts to delineate these powers, particularly in Section 251, which sets out the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. This assignment will examine four specific questions relating to this division, focusing on banker-customer relationships, suits involving federal agencies, and the scope of the Federal High Court's criminal jurisdiction.
1. Which court can entertain issues between banker/customer relationship?
The question of which court has jurisdiction over disputes arising from a banker-customer relationship depends on the specific nature of the dispute. The Nigerian court system operates a dual-hierarchy of courts, primarily the Federal High Court and the High Courts of the various States. While State High Courts possess general and largely unlimited jurisdiction, the Federal High Court's jurisdiction is specifically enumerated in the Constitution and is therefore limited to those listed matters (Malemi, 2017).
Ordinarily, a banker-customer relationship is founded on contract. Disputes arising from this relationship, such as a disagreement over an account balance, a failure to honour a cheque, or the collection of a simple debt, are considered matters of simple contract. In such cases, jurisdiction lies with the State High Court. The Supreme Court confirmed this position in Jammal Steel Structures Ltd v African Continental Bank Ltd [1973] 1 ALL N.L.R (Part 11) 208, where it was held that a simple contractual dispute involving a bank does not, by itself, grant jurisdiction to the Federal High Court. The court reasoned that the cause of action was based on a breach of contract, a matter falling squarely within the jurisdiction of the State High Courts.
However, the Federal High Court may have jurisdiction if the dispute falls within the specific matters listed in Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution. Specifically, Section 251(1)(d) grants the Federal High Court exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters "connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another…". This has been interpreted to refer to matters intrinsically related to the federal legislative competence over banking, such as the fiscal measures of the government, the operations of the Central Bank of Nigeria, or disputes concerning the corporate structure and regulation of banks.
Therefore, a clear distinction must be drawn. If the dispute is a simple debt recovery or breach of contract between a customer and their bank, the State High Court is the proper forum. Conversely, if the issue touches upon the administration, management, or control of a bank as a corporate entity or its regulation under federal banking laws, the Federal High Court would have exclusive jurisdiction.
2. Which court has jurisdiction for suits involving the Federal Government or its agencies under Section 251(1)(p), (q), and (r) of the 1999 Constitution?
Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) explicitly grants the Federal High Court exclusive jurisdiction over a range of matters. Paragraphs (p), (q), and (r) are particularly significant as they deal directly with litigation involving the Federal Government and its agencies. These provisions state that the Federal High Court shall have and exercise exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters concerning:
> (p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies; > (q) subject to the provisions of this constitution, any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies; and > (r) subject to the provisions of this constitution, any action or proceeding against the Federation or any of its agencies.
The language of these provisions is clear and direct. Where the Federal Government or any of its multifarious agencies is a party to a civil suit, whether as a claimant or a defendant, the Federal High Court is the court vested with the constitutional authority to hear the matter. This exclusive jurisdiction is designed to create a specialised court to handle the complex administrative and governmental issues that arise in litigation involving the federal state apparatus.
The landmark case that solidified this interpretation is NEPA v. Edegbero [2002] 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 79. In this case, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that once a federal government agency is a party in a matter, the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the case, provided the subject matter is also one that falls under Section 251(1). The combined effect of the subject matter and the identity of the parties (specifically, a federal agency) vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the State High Courts. This principle has been consistently applied in subsequent cases, reinforcing the Federal High Court's unique role as the primary venue for litigating against or on behalf of the Federal Government and its agencies.
3. Can the National Assembly confer exclusive criminal jurisdiction on the Federal High Court?
The power of the National Assembly to legislate on the jurisdiction of federal courts is rooted in the Constitution itself. While Section 251(1) details the civil jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, its criminal jurisdiction is addressed in subsequent subsections.
Section 251(3) of the 1999 Constitution provides a direct answer to this question. It states:
> "The Federal High Court shall also have and may exercise jurisdiction and powers in respect of criminal causes and matters in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred by an Act of the National Assembly, including any criminal cause or matter arising out of or connecting with any of the matters to which the civil jurisdiction of the Federal High Court extends."
This provision unequivocally empowers the National Assembly to pass legislation that confers criminal jurisdiction on the Federal High Court. The National Assembly has frequently exercised this power by including jurisdictional clauses in statutes that create federal offences. For example, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004 grants the Federal High Court jurisdiction to try offences under that Act. Similarly, the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act and the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 (as amended) also empower the Federal High Court to hear criminal cases arising from them.
The question of whether this conferred jurisdiction can be made exclusive is a matter of statutory interpretation. The National Assembly has the power to specify the nature of the jurisdiction it confers. If a statute explicitly states that the Federal High Court shall have "exclusive jurisdiction" over certain criminal offences, the courts are generally bound to uphold that provision, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of any other court over those specific offences. Therefore, the National Assembly possesses the constitutional authority not only to confer criminal jurisdiction on the Federal High Court but also to define that jurisdiction as exclusive.
4. Does the Federal High Court have exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction?
While the National Assembly can confer exclusive criminal jurisdiction, it does not mean that all criminal jurisdiction held by the Federal High Court is exclusive. The general principle is that State High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including over criminal matters, unless this jurisdiction is expressly and specifically removed by the Constitution or another law (Malemi, 2017).
The criminal jurisdiction of the Federal High Court comes from two main sources within the Constitution: Section 251(2), which covers "treason, treasonable felony and allied offences," and Section 251(3), which allows for jurisdiction conferred by Acts of the National Assembly.
The civil jurisdiction under Section 251(1) is explicitly stated to be "exclusive." Notably, the word "exclusive" is absent from Section 251(2) and (3). This textual difference is significant and has led the judiciary to conclude that criminal jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court is not automatically exclusive.
The prevailing judicial view is that unless the statute conferring criminal jurisdiction explicitly states that such jurisdiction is "exclusive," it is held concurrently with State High Courts. The Supreme Court decision in Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Onogen (2019) LPELR-46503(SC) is instructive. The court considered whether the Federal High Court had exclusive jurisdiction over charges brought by the EFCC. It was held that State High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to hear and determine such cases. The court reasoned that depriving a State High Court of its jurisdiction requires clear and unambiguous statutory language, and the absence of the word "exclusive" in the relevant EFCC Act provision meant that jurisdiction was shared.
Therefore, the Federal High Court does not have general, exclusive criminal jurisdiction. While its jurisdiction over treason under Section 251(2) is arguably exclusive due to its fundamental nature as an offence against the state, the much wider criminal jurisdiction granted by various federal statutes is generally concurrent. The jurisdiction only becomes exclusive if the specific Act of the National Assembly creating the offence expressly provides for it.
Conclusion
The jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is a specialised one, carefully carved out by the Constitution from the general jurisdiction of the State High Courts. In banker-customer disputes, jurisdiction follows the cause of action: simple contract claims belong in the State High Court, while matters touching on federal banking regulation belong in the Federal High Court. For civil suits involving the Federal Government or its agencies, Section 251 firmly and exclusively places jurisdiction with the Federal High Court. Furthermore, the Constitution empowers the National Assembly to grant the Federal High Court criminal jurisdiction, which can be made exclusive. However, this power must be exercised explicitly. As it stands, much of the Federal High Court's statutory criminal jurisdiction is held concurrently with State High Courts, reflecting a constitutional design that preserves the broad powers of state courts unless a clear and precise intention to oust their jurisdiction is expressed.
References
Cases
- Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria v. NDIC [1999] 2 NWLR (Pt.591) 333
- Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Onogen (2019) LPELR-46503(SC)
- Jammal Steel Structures Ltd v African Continental Bank Ltd [1973] 1 ALL N.L.R (Part 11) 208
- NEPA v. Edegbero [2002] 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 79
- NDIC v. Okem Enterprises Ltd [2004] 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107
Legislation
- Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
- Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004
- National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Act, Cap N30, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004
- Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 (as amended)
Book
- Malemi, E. (2017) The Nigerian Legal System. 5th edn. Princeton Publishing Co.
