LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Exclusive Jurisdiction of Federal High Court — Section 230(1)(d) of Decree No. 107 of 1993 — Requirement that Cause of Action Must Arise from Banking
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
For the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to be sustained under section 230(1)(d), the civil cause or matter must arise from banking. Where the action is grounded on the tort of conversion, it is well within the jurisdiction of the State High Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Edozie, JSC, in Trade Bank Plc v. Benilux (Nig.) Ltd (2003) NLC-1862000(SC) at pp. 10–11; Paras E–A.
"For the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to be sustained under the aforesaid section, the civil cause or matter must arise from 'banking, banks, other financial institutions.' In the instant case the respondent's grouse was simply that his cheque was dealt with by the appellant in a manner inconsistent with his right. In my humble view it can hardly be said that the respondent's cause of action falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. On the contrary the action is grounded on the tort of conversion, an action well within the jurisdiction of the State High Court pursuant to section 236(1) of then 1979 Constitution."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The cause of action must arise from banking to invoke exclusive Federal High Court jurisdiction. The principle applies to constitutional law. A claim grounded in conversion is within State High Court jurisdiction. The rule prevents overreach of exclusive jurisdiction. The court will examine the true nature of the claim. The principle is well-established.