LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Federal High Court Jurisdiction — Scope of the Proviso to Section 251(1)(d) Confers Concurrent Jurisdiction Only in Banker-Customer Disputes
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The proviso to section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution under which both the Federal High Court and State High Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction will not apply where there is no banker-customer relationship. The Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in such matters as provided under section 251(1)(d) (the proviso excluded).
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Societe Bancaire (Nigeria) Limited v. Lluch (2004) NLC-2862002(SC) at p. 12; Paras A–B.
"The proviso to section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution under which both the Federal High Court and State High Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction therefore will not apply (see NDIC v. Okem Enterprises Ltd. (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 850) 107). It is therefore my view that the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in this matter as provided under section 251(1)(d) (the proviso excluded)."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The proviso to section 251(1)(d) granting concurrent jurisdiction applies only to banker-customer disputes. Where no banker-customer relationship exists, the proviso does not apply. The Federal High Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over matters connected with or pertaining to banking. The principle applies to constitutional interpretation. The rule limits concurrent jurisdiction to traditional banker-customer disputes. Other banking matters remain exclusively within Federal High Court jurisdiction.
