Principle Statement

A dispute over money lent to a customer by a financial house is not within section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution over which the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction. Rather, it comes within those excluded in the proviso.

Ratio Decidendi (Source)

Per Akintan, JSC, in Associated Discount House Ltd v. Amalgamated Trustees Ltd (2006) NLC-123-289-2002(SC) at pp. 11–12; Paras D–A.

"The word 'bank' is not defined in the Constitution and in the Interpretation Act. It is therefore appropriate to ascribe its ordinary grammatical meaning which is, according to Ogundare, JSC in Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria v. NDIC (1999) 2 NWLR (Pt. 591) 333 at 361, as: 'an organization or place that provides financial services.' As I have stated earlier above, the plaintiff's claim in the instant case is a dispute over money lent to a customer by a financial house. It is therefore not one coming within those specified in section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution over which the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction. On the other hand, it comes within those excluded from the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in the proviso to sub-section 251(1)(d) of the Constitution."

Explanation / Scope

Disputes between an individual customer and a bank are excluded from the Federal High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. The principle applies to constitutional interpretation.

Cases Applying This Principle