site logo
Skip to case content
Case Digest

MUFUTAU AJAYI V. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (2023)

Supreme Court of Nigeria

Coram
  • John Inyang Okoro JSC
  • Chima Centus Nweze JSC
  • Uwani Musa Abba-Aji JSC
  • Mohammed Lawal Garba JSC
  • Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju JSC
Parties

Appellant:

  • Mufutau Ajayi

Respondent:

  • Securities and Exchange Commission
Suit number
SC. 314/2007
Delivered on

Background

This case revolves around the administrative proceedings against Mufutau Ajayi, the former Finance and Accounts Manager of African Petroleum Plc. Ajayi was penalized by the Administrative Proceedings Committee (APC) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for allegedly authorizing the issuance of a prospectus containing false statements about the company's financial status. Following his penalization without a hearing notice, he sought to quash the committee’s decision through the Federal High Court.

Issues

The primary issues considered by the Supreme Court included:

  1. Whether the Federal High Court had the jurisdiction to grant an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the APC due to alleged breach of fair hearing rights.
  2. Whether the lower courts appropriately affirmed that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction regarding matters of the Investment and Securities Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, confirming that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over matters arising from the Investment and Securities Act. Notably, the Court asserted that the Investment and Securities Tribunal (IST) is the appropriate body for such disputes.

Court Findings

The findings of the Court indicated:

  1. The appellant was duly served with hearing notices, negating his claim of denial of fair hearing.
  2. The correct forum for hearing grievances pertaining to decisions by the APC is the IST, as stipulated by the Investment and Securities Act.
  3. Orders of certiorari are appropriate when there is proof of denial of fair hearing or excess jurisdiction, none of which were established by Ajayi.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed Ajayi's appeal, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. It underscored the importance of adhering to prescribed legal procedures in regulatory matters, particularly in financial disputes.

Significance

This judgment underlines the clear demarcation of jurisdiction between the Federal High Court and the Investment and Securities Tribunal, establishing that disputes relating to capital market operations must be addressed within the framework of the IST, reinforcing the integrity of administrative justice in Nigeria's financial sector.

Counsel:

  • Mofesona Tayo-Oyetibo, Esq.
  • Ife Olu Akindoju, Esq.