LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Federal High Court Jurisdiction — Exclusive Jurisdiction over Matters Connected with or Pertaining to Banking Under Section 251(1)(d) Where No Banker-Customer Relationship Exists
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The expression 'connecting with or pertaining to banking' imports transactions on matters that relate to, show affinity with, intertwine with, or have interrelationship with banking. Even without a banker-customer relationship, the matter touches on banking generally and falls within section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Pats-Acholonu, JSC, in Societe Bancaire (Nigeria) Limited v. Lluch (2004) NLC-2862002(SC) at pp. 8–11; Paras D–A.
"The expression 'connecting with or pertaining to banking' when examined synthetically imports transaction on matters that are related to or show affinity or intertwine or have semblance or have interrelationship with banking. [...] Holding therefore as I do that the matter to my mind touches on the issue of banking generally but certainly not a bank customer relationship, it is difficult not to conclude that this case ought to have been brought squarely before the Federal High Court as it is obvious it falls within the intendment of the Primary Law as reflected in section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution but not including the portion with the proviso."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters connected with or pertaining to banking, even without a banker-customer relationship. The phrase covers transactions that relate to, show affinity with, intertwine with, or have interrelationship with banking. The principle applies to constitutional interpretation of section 251(1)(d). The rule gives broad meaning to banking jurisdiction. The presence or absence of a banker-customer relationship is not determinative. The substance of the connection to banking matters controls jurisdiction.
