"It is to be noted though the situation has become trite that it is the claim of a plaintiff that vests jurisdiction in a Court. See Adeyemi v Opeyori (1976) 9 - 10 SC 31. That is the basis on which the trial Court held thus:"Whilst the defendant is not contesting the fact that it acquired all the rights and liabilities accruable to Oceanic Bank Plc, it then becomes lucid that the banker-customer relationship which existed between the plaintiffs and Oceanic Bank transposes to a relationship between the defendants (sic) and the defendant. See paragraph 9 of the statement of claim"' As a guide I shall cite the case of Bank of the North v. Yau (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt.721) 408 at 438 paras D - E, this Court per Ayoola JSC held thus:"In the course of carrying on business of banking, a bank enters into several contractual relationships and performs various roles. It is important in an action between bank and customer to be clear which of the several contractual relationships forms or form the basis of the action. In this case, it is pertinent to note only four of these possible relationships, namely: (i) The relationship of creditor and debtor that arises in regard to the customer's funds in the hands of the bank; (ii) The relationship of creditor and debtor that arises when the bank loans money to the customer or allows him to overdraw on this accounts; (iii) The relationship that arises from the role of the bank as a collecting bank of cheques drawn or other banks or branches of the same bank by a third person; and (iv) the possible role of the bank as a holder for value of a negotiable instrument." (Underline mine for emphasis). The said meeting was also specifically referenced in relief 45 (a) of the statement of claim thus:"A declaration that the plaintiffs (as customers), by the agreement reached at the meetings of July 22, 2013 and December 12, 2013 with the defendant (as banker to the plaintiffs) are not indebted to the defendant in any amount apart from the agreed sum of N3,500,000,000.00 (Three Billion, Five Hundred Million Naira) as full and final settlement/liquidation of their indebtedness." Evidently clear from what has been showcased above is that what is available as the relationship between the parties is that of banker/customer, a situation of interaction emanating from a banking transaction where both parties assumed the role of creditor and debtor however the colouring presentation may seem to be. See Bank of the North v Yau (supra)."
Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. in ECOBANK v. ANCHORAGE LEISURES LTD & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45125(SC)
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT: Whether the Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction in cases of banker/customer relationship "...To set the stage in this deliberation is to go into the constitutional provisions of Section 251 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) CFRN for short and thus:251 (1) - Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other Court in civil cases and matters (a)...; (b)...; (c)...' (d) connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange, letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures: Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute between an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions between the individual customer and the bank." From the provisions of Section 251 (1) (d) CFRN, the Federal High Court is vested with exclusive jurisdiction in relation to issues pertaining to banks, banking and other financial institutions but when the dispute relates to banker/customer relationship, the jurisdiction is not exclusive and the said jurisdiction is concurrently shared with the Federal High Court and the State High Courts and that of the Federal capital Territory. The interpretation clearing the grey area on the confusion that would have otherwise arisen is seen in the case of NDIC v. Okem Ent. Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt.680) 107 at 221 where the Supreme Court stated thus:"Section 251 (1) (d) does not confer exclusive jurisdiction in disputes arising between individual customer and the bank on the State High Court. All it did is to remove the exclusivity in dealing with those kinds of disputes from the Federal High Court; which means that the High Court of a State by virtue of Section 272 (1) of the 1999 Constitution also shares the jurisdiction with the Federal High Court.
Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C. in ECOBANK v. ANCHORAGE LEISURES LTD & ORS CITATION: (2018) LPELR-45125(SC)
