ZEROCK CONSTRUCTION NIGERIA LTD V. FAPLIN (NIG.) LTD (2022)

Background

This case originates from a dispute between Zerock Construction Nigeria Ltd (the Appellant) and Faplin (Nig.) Ltd (the Respondent) over a consultancy agreement related to a contract awarded by the Central Bank of Nigeria. The Respondent claimed that it engaged the services of the Appellant as a consultant for a project, expecting payment based on a contractual agreement. The Respondent alleged that while an initial payment was made, the Appellant failed to pay the remaining consultancy fees despite repeated requests. Consequently, the Respondent filed a suit in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.

The Appellant contended that the contract was executed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal Capital Territory High Court and filed a motion seeking to strike out the suit on the grounds of incompetence. The trial court upheld the objection on jurisdiction partially but ordered the transfer of the suit to the High Court of Rivers State instead of striking it out, prompting the Appellant to appeal.

Issues

The appeal brought forward two primary issues for determination:

1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to strike out the Respondent's suit and instead improperly exercised its jurisdiction by transferring it to the High Court of Rivers State.
2. Whether the trial court correctly held that it required evidence to determine the alleged illegality under the Public Procurement Act in the context of the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal clarified that jurisdiction is fundamental to any judicial process and determines a court's ability to hear or rule on a matter. Notably, it held that a court lacking jurisdiction has a mandatory duty to strike out the case rather than transfer it. This principle adhered to the long-standing legal doctrine that once jurisdiction is found lacking, further proceedings are void.

Court Findings

The Court of Appeal found that the lower court, having recognized its lack of territorial jurisdiction, wrongly opted to transfer the case rather than dismiss it. The court reiterated that the law mandates a striking out of a suit deemed incompetent, emphasizing that the transfer of a matter to another court is not permitted unless specific statutes expressly confer such authority. No such statutory provisions existed in this instance.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal concluded that the transfer order was perverse, rendering it null and void. As a result, the initial suit was struck out for lack of jurisdiction, aligning with the legal principles that govern judicial competence.

Significance

This ruling reinforces the essential nature of jurisdiction in court proceedings and clarifies that courts must adhere strictly to jurisdictional determinations. It serves as a precedent for future cases involving jurisdictional challenges, emphasizing that courts must act within their territorial limits and uphold judicial integrity through proper procedural adherence.