CHIEF EUGENE ENEH V. NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (2018)

Background

This appeal concerned the jurisdiction of the Enugu State High Court to entertain a claim relating to a parcel of land at Plot 10, Block VI, Ogui New Layout, Enugu. Chief Eugene Eneh, the appellant, claimed declarations that he was entitled to the right of occupancy over the property by virtue of a deed of assignment. He also sought declarations that the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation lacked the authority or locus standi to apply to set aside an irrevocable power of attorney, that an order of the Failed Bank Tribunal setting aside that power of attorney was null and void, an order compelling the restoration of entries in the land registry, and an injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with the property.

The first respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the State High Court. The trial court dismissed the objections and assumed jurisdiction. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the reliefs substantially sought to invalidate or circumvent an earlier decision of the Failed Bank Tribunal. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant’s grounds of appeal were incompetent because leave had not been obtained under section 233(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.
2. Whether the appellant’s brief was filed out of time and whether that defect rendered the appeal incompetent.
3. Whether the Enugu State High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the claims in view of the earlier order of the Failed Bank Tribunal.
4. Whether a State High Court could review, set aside, or otherwise interfere with the decision of a court or tribunal of co-ordinate jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the two grounds of appeal complained of the application or interpretation of law to admitted or ascertained facts. They were therefore grounds of law alone, rather than grounds of mixed law and fact, and did not require prior leave under section 233(2)(a) of the Constitution.

The Court further held that an objection based on the late filing of a brief must be supported by sufficient material showing when the relevant procedural period began to run. Since the first respondent failed to establish when the record of appeal was served on the appellant, the presumption of regularity attached to the appellant’s brief was not rebutted. In any event, incompetence of a brief does not necessarily make the appeal incompetent ab initio; it may instead expose the appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution.

On jurisdiction, the Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is principally determined by the plaintiff’s claim and the reliefs sought. A court is competent where it is properly constituted, the subject matter falls within its jurisdiction without any disabling feature, and the action was commenced by due process after fulfilment of any condition precedent. The decisive question was therefore not merely that the claim mentioned land, but whether the reliefs could be granted without effectively overturning the Failed Bank Tribunal’s order.

Court Findings

The Supreme Court examined the reliefs and concluded that the declarations challenging the first respondent’s application, the attack on the Tribunal’s order, and the requested restoration of the land-registry entries could not be granted without setting aside the Tribunal’s prior decision. Under section 3(3) of the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks Decree No. 18 of 1994, the Tribunal possessed the powers of the Federal High Court, and its judgments were to be enforced in the same manner as judgments and orders of that court.

Accordingly, the Failed Bank Tribunal and the State High Court were courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction for the relevant purpose. It was impermissible for the State High Court to sit on appeal over the Tribunal, exercise supervisory jurisdiction over it, or nullify its subsisting orders. The proper course available to a person aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision was to pursue the prescribed appellate route. The subsequent legislative changes transferring relevant matters to the Federal High Court did not confer on the Enugu State High Court power to review the Tribunal’s earlier decision.

The Court also applied the doctrine of stare decisis and the principle that courts must respect the constitutional hierarchy and jurisdictional limits of other courts. Allowing courts of equal standing to issue inconsistent orders concerning the same subject matter would undermine certainty, judicial discipline, and the administration of justice.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It held that the Enugu State High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s claims because their substance was an attempt to review or set aside the decision of the Failed Bank Tribunal. Costs of N200,000 were awarded in favour of the first respondent.

Significance

The decision is important for Nigerian civil procedure and jurisdictional law. It confirms that the form of a claim cannot disguise its true substance: a claim framed as a declaration of title will be incompetent where the reliefs necessarily require the reversal of an existing decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. It also clarifies the distinction between grounds of law and grounds of mixed law and fact, the exceptional ability to raise jurisdictional issues for the first time before the Supreme Court, and the evidential burden resting on a party seeking the discretionary dismissal of an appeal or brief on procedural grounds.