LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Federal High Court Jurisdiction — Action Founded on Negligence May Still Be a Matter Connected with or Pertaining to Banking
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where the respondent based her action on the tort of negligence, which imports a duty of care, and the respondent is not a customer, the nature of the relationship touches inferentially or circumstantially on a matter relating to, connected to, and pertaining to banking.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Pats-Acholonu, JSC, in Societe Bancaire (Nigeria) Limited v. Lluch (2004) NLC-2862002(SC) at p. 11; Paras A–B.
"As the respondent based her action on the tort of negligence, which imports there was a duty of care and the respondent has said that she is not a customer which indeed she is not, I find it highly irresistible not to express the view that the nature of the relationship subsisting between the parties touches inferentially or circumstantially on a matter relating to and therefore connected to and pertaining to banking."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Even an action framed in negligence may be connected with or pertain to banking. The relationship between the parties, though not banker-customer, can still touch on banking matters inferentially. The principle applies to constitutional jurisdiction under section 251(1)(d). The rule prevents avoidance of Federal High Court jurisdiction by simply labelling claims as tort. The court examines the substance of the relationship, not just the label.
