LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Jurisdiction — Federal High Court and State High Court Have Concurrent Jurisdiction in Disputes Between Individual Customer and Bank
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The proviso in section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution relaxes the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in disputes between an individual customer and his bank. In that regard, a State High Court also has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal High Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Okem Enterprises Limited (2004) NLC-922003(SC) at pp. 38–39; Paras D–A.
"The proper view of the proviso in section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution is that the main provision having used the language of exclusive jurisdiction, the proviso then relaxes that exclusiveness given to the Federal High Court therein in a situation in which the issue is a dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual and the bank. In that regard, a State High Court will also have or continue to exercise jurisdiction and this it does concurrently with the Federal High Court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
State High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with Federal High Court in individual customer-bank disputes. The principle applies to constitutional law. The proviso relaxes exclusivity. The rule ensures access to justice. The court will uphold concurrent jurisdiction. The principle is well-established.
