BRONIK MOTORS LTD. & ANOR. V. WEMA BANK LTD

• Pages: 226-280

226



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1983] N.S.C.C.

(6)], it seems to me clear that the 1979 Constitution by its provisions in sub-sec-

tions (4), (5) and (6) of section 149 is creating an exception to the general prin-

ciple that the National Assembly cannot confer functions on State functionaries.

For if, as it is clear, both the Federal Government and the State Government

are interested in the State Joint Local Government Account, the National Assem-



5

bly in establishing the Account has to think of the interests of both the Federal or

State Governments and in setting up to composition of the Committee and deter-

mining its functions, it is to be expected that the National Assembly will include

representatives of the two "governments."

For these reasons and the reasons stated by my learned brother Uwais,



10

J.S.C. I hold that section 6 of the Revenue Allocation (Federation Account, etc.)

Act 1982 No.1 is valid. The plaintiff fails on the second claim while he succeeds

on the first and the third claims.

I endorse the order as to costs made in the judgment of the Presiding Justice

Sowemimo, J.S.C.



15

Appeal allowed in part.

20

BRONIK MOTORS LTD. & ANOR. V. WEMA

BANK LTD.

25

BRONIK MOTORS LTD & ANOR.

V

WEMA BANK LTD.

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

IRIKEFE,



J.S.C.

BELLO,



J.S.C.

IDIGBE,



J.S.C.

OBASEKI,



J.S.C.

ESO,



J.S.C.

NNAMANI,



J.S.C.

UWAIS,



J.S.C.

10th June, 1983

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 110/1982

30

35

40

Commercial Law - Banking matters - Claim by bank for specific performance of

mortgage agreement to secure customer's overdraft - Proper fonun - State

High Court or Federal High Court.

Practice and Procedure - Jurisdiction - Judgment - Judicial precedent - Stare

decisis rule - Principles for departure from interpretation of statutes - Principles

for construction of constitutional instruments - Noscitur a sociis - Applicability

to "banking" in Federal High Court Act, s.7(1)(b)(iii).

Words and Phrases - "Judicial Power", in s.6 of 1979 Constitution, distinguished

from 'jurisdiction" - "or" and "another" in s.7(1)(b)(iii) of Federal High Court

Act 1973 - Not to be construed disjunctively - Punctuation - To be construed

as part of enactment except where contrary intention shown.

45

50

BRONIK MOTORS LTD. & ANOR. V. WEMA BANK LTD.



227

Constitutional Law - Judicial powers of the Federation - Division of between

Federal and state Government by s. 6 of 1979 Constitution - Proper construction

and effect of s.230(1)(b) of 1979 Constitution.

5

ISSUES:

1.

Whether s.7(1)(b)(iii) of the Federal High Court Act 1973 ousts the jurisdiction

of state High Courts in relation to all claims pertaining to banking transactions.

2. What is the proper construction and effect of section 230(1)(b) of the 1979

Constitution?

10



3. On what particular issues does the 1979 Constitution specifically confer

jurisdiction on the Federal High Court?

4.

Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court depart from a judicial

precedent?

5.

Whether the

ejusdem generis

rule applies in construing s.7(1)(b)(iii) of the

15



Federal High Court Act 1973.

6.

What is the proper construction and effect of s.6 of the 1979 Constitution?

FACTS:

The plaintiff/respondent instituted an action in the Lagos High Court claiming

specific performance of a mortgage agreement to secure the defendant/appel-

20



lant's overdraft. The trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff bank and the de-

fendants appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which confirmed the High Court's

judgment and dismissed the appeal.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended for the appellants that the

two lower courts erred in law in failing to observe that jurisdiction over the claim

25



in the action was not vested in the Lagos High Court but in the Federal High Court.

HELD:

1. That the proper forum for the claim of the respondent was the High Court of

Lagos and not the Federal High Court, and as such the Lagos High Court had

jurisdiction to hear the suit.

30



2. That the provisions of section 230(1)(b) of the 1979 Constitution conferring

additional jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in such other matters "as may

be prescribed" by the National Assembly, refers to future enactments of the

National Assembly and is not

per se,

a self-executing provision conferring

jurisdiction on that court in respect of all matters contained in the Exclusive

35



legislative list.

3. That where there is involved only a dispute between a bank and one or more

of its customers in the ordinary course of banking business or transaction, as

is the case with the subject matter of the present case, any State High Court is

competent to entertain the case because the Government is not particularly

40



interested in the outcome of the dispute. Thus s.7(1)(b)(iii) of the Federal High

Court Act 1973 does not oust the jurisdiction of State High Courts in relation to

all claims pertaining to banking transactions.

4. The 1979 Constitution in section 42, 230(2) and 237(1) expressly conferred

jurisdiction on the Federal High Court for the hearing and determination of

45



certain specific matters.

5. The Supreme Court will not depart from a judicial precedent unless three

pre-requisite conditions are prayed in aid and satisfied, namely

(a) a broad issue of justice

50



(b) or policy, and

(c) a question of legal principle such that the retention of the decision would

amount to a perpetuation of injustice.

228



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1983] N.S.C.C.

6.

That even though the majority judgment in

Jamal's case held that the

ejusdem

generis

rule could be applied in construing S.7(1)(b)(iii) of the Federal High

Court Act 1973, this approach raises a few problems as the rule was applied

`in reverse'. A better approach would be to apply

noscitur a sociis -

which is

a rule of construction applied to all written instruments, and means that a word



5

is known by the company it keeps. Where two or more words which are

susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together

noscitur a sociis,

they

are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take, as it were, their

colour from each other, the meaning of the more general being restricted to a

sense analogous to that of the less general. Under this rule, "other fiscal



10

measures" can be held to apply to the words above - banking, foreign exchange

and currency.

7.

The provisions of section 6(6) of the 1979 Constitution are not in any way

intended to delimit the extent of Federal and State judicial powers, rather they

tend to define the nature of judicial power as authority for the determination of



15

the rights of parties in suits before the courts.

CASES REFERRED TO IN JUDGMENT:

1.

Jammal Steel Structures Ltd. v. African Continental Bank Ltd.

(1973) 1 All

N.L.R. Part II 208.



20

2.

American International Insurance Company v. Ceekay Traders Ltd

(1981) 5

S.C. 81 at 82.

3.

Jones v. Secretary of State

(1972) 1 All E.R. 145.

4.

Attorney-General Bendel State v. Attorney-General & 18 others

SC. 108/82.

5.

Huddart, Parker & Co. Ltd v. Moorehead

(1909) 8 C.L.R. 330 at 357.



25

6.

Shell

Co.

of Australia v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation

(1931) A.C. 275.

at 295-297.

7.

Senator Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

(1980) 5

S.C. 112 at 163-164.

8.

Senate of the National Assembly & Anor v. Tony Momoh

FCA/L/45/81 and



30

decided on 19th July, 1982.

9.

Ex Parte Fernandez

(1861) 6 H & N 717 at 725; (1861) 10. C.B.N.S. 3

10.Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Jonathan Onyebuchi Eze

(1982) 3 N.C.L.R.

259.

11.Minister of Internal Affairs v. Shugaba Abdurrahaman Darman

(1982) 2



35

N.C.L.R. 915 at 963.

12.Sharpe v. Wakefield

(1888) 22 Q.B.D. 239 at 241- 2.

13.

Clerical Medical and General Life Assurance Society v. Carter

(1889) 22

Q.B.D. 444 and 448.

14.Stephens v. Cuckfield R.D.C. (1960) 2 Q.B.

373

at 382.



40

15.Pinner v. Everret

(1969) 2 All E.R. 257 at 258.

16.

Letang v. Cooper

1 Q.B. 232 at 247.

17.Attorney-General of Gambia v. N'Jie

(1961) A.C. 617.

18.Rola

Co.

(Australia) Property Ltd. v. Commonwealth

(1944) 69 C.L.R. 185 at

188.



45

19.Myers v. Elman

(1940) A.C. 282 at 318; (1939) 4 A.E.R. 484.

20.Hoke v. United States

227 U.S 308.

21./n

Re Wellstead Will Trusts

(1949) Ch. 296.

22.Stone v. Yeovil Corporation

(1876) (1) C.P.O. 691 at 701.

23.Archbishop of Canterbury's case

(1596) 2 Co. Rep. 46.



50

24.Nnaka Udenta & Ors v. Ani Chukwunta & Ors.

(1959) 111 E.N.L.R. 45.

25.

Hill v. Williams Hill Parklane Ltd.

(1949) A.C. 530 at 546.

26.

Bucknor Mclean & Anor v. Inlaks Ltd.

(1980) 8-11 S.C. 1 at 23.

27.Nasr v. Bouri

(1969) 1 N.M.L.R. 38, 40, 42.