ATOYEBI V. BARCLAYS BANK PLC (2026)

Background

The appellant sued Barclays Bank Plc and Barclays Group Representative Office (Nigeria) Limited at the High Court of Lagos State for damages arising from the alleged wrongful dishonour of several sterling cheques and failed transfers. He alleged that he opened the account through the second respondent’s Lagos office, which acted as the first respondent’s representative or agent, although the account was domiciled in England. The alleged dishonours occurred at Barclays branches in London. The appellant also made an insufficiently pleaded assertion of libel.

The trial court granted leave for service of the writ on the first respondent outside Nigeria, but later set that service aside for want of jurisdiction. It held that the relevant acts occurred in the United Kingdom and that Order 8 of the Lagos State High Court Rules did not make the claims justiciable in Lagos. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the High Court of Lagos State had jurisdiction over the first respondent, a company resident and principally carrying on business in England, in an action involving a contract allegedly made through its Lagos representative.
2. Whether the appellant’s claims fell within the provisions permitting service of originating process outside Nigeria under Order 8 rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules.
3. Whether the appellant had pleaded a tort of libel sufficient to support service outside jurisdiction.
4. Whether the Court of Appeal and trial court were entitled to treat the cause of action as territorially confined to London.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held unanimously that the High Court of Lagos State’s jurisdiction is derived principally from section 272(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which contains no territorial restriction limiting jurisdiction to defendants resident in Lagos or causes of action arising there. Section 6 of the Constitution does not impose such a restriction. The distinction between a State’s judicial power and the jurisdiction of its courts must also be maintained.

The territorial question was one of private international law. Section 10 of the High Court Law of Lagos State gives the Lagos High Court the jurisdiction, powers and authorities exercisable by the High Court of Justice in England, subject to Nigerian constitutional and statutory limits. Under those conflict-of-laws principles, an action in personam may be brought as of right where the defendant is present and served, submits to jurisdiction, or is served outside jurisdiction pursuant to statutory authority such as Order 8.

The appellant’s contractual claim fell within Order 8 rule 1(e). On the pleaded facts, the banker-customer contract was made through the second respondent in Lagos, which acted as the first respondent’s representative in completing the account-opening formalities. A company may have a place of business in a country without conducting all of its principal business there; the first respondent’s use of the second respondent’s Lagos office as a sales, communication, document-exchange and customer-contact office was sufficient.

The alleged libel did not independently support service outside jurisdiction because the appellant did not plead the exact defamatory words, injury to reputation, publication to a third party, or publication in Lagos.

Court Findings

The Court found that the lower courts misconceived the nature of the claim as an action in personam and wrongly treated the location of the cheque dishonours as determinative of jurisdiction. Under conflict-of-laws principles, the place where the cause of action arose generally does not determine jurisdiction, except in matters concerning land.

The Court further held that the Lagos procedural rules concerning venue within judicial divisions are different from the principles governing the choice between courts in different States or countries. Order 8 provided statutory authority for service on the first respondent outside Nigeria. The second respondent’s office constituted an established place of business of the first respondent within Lagos for the relevant purposes.

Although the lower courts made concurrent findings, the Supreme Court was entitled to interfere because those courts had misunderstood the appellant’s claim and misapplied Order 8. The appellant’s libel allegation remained inadequately pleaded, but the contract claim was sufficient to sustain the service and jurisdictional basis of the action.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the High Court’s order setting aside service on the first respondent, was set aside. The case was remitted to the High Court of Lagos State for continuation of proceedings on the merits. The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs of the appeal.

Significance

The decision clarifies that a State High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction is not automatically confined to defendants resident within the State or causes of action occurring there. Cross-border claims must instead be analysed under applicable private international law and the relevant statutory rules for service outside jurisdiction. It also confirms that a foreign company’s representative or customer-contact office may constitute a place of business and that a contract formed through such an office may support extraterritorial service.