CASE TITLE: ATOYEBI v. BARCLAYS BANK PLC & ANOR (2026) LPELR-83225(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 30TH JANUARY, 2026
JUSTICES: MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA JSC
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR JSC
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME JSC
HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI JSC
HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU JSC
PRACTICE AREA: BANKING LAW
FACTS:
This appeal borders on the jurisdiction of the Court.
The Appellant instituted an action against the Respondents in the High Court of Lagos State, claiming damages for the alleged negligent and persistent dishonouring of cheques and failure to effect bank transfers despite having sufficient funds in his account with the 1st Respondent, a bank operating in the United Kingdom. The Appellant maintained that he opened the account through the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent’s representative in Nigeria, and that the banking relationship was established in Lagos. The Respondents filed a motion on notice seeking to strike out the name of the 2nd Respondent for being an improper party, set aside service of the court processes for want of jurisdiction, and strike out the suit as an abuse of process on the ground that the dispute had been referred to the UK Financial Ombudsman Service.
The High Court refused the prayers to strike out the 2nd Respondent and the suit but set aside service of the court processes on the 1st Respondent, holding that the alleged acts occurred in the United Kingdom and that Lagos was not the proper forum for the action. Dissatisfied with that decision, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ruling of the High Court, holding that the 1st Respondent did not carry on banking business in Lagos through the 2nd Respondent and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claims against the 1st Respondent. The Appellant, further dissatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES:
The Court considered the issue of whether or not the Court of Appeal was correct when it upheld the decision of the trial High Court that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim of the Appellant against the first Respondent and the consequential setting aside of the service of the writ of summons on the first Respondent.
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
Counsel to the Appellant, relying on Nwabueze v Okoye (1988) NWLR (Pt 91) 664, submitted that a court’s jurisdiction over a person outside its territory depends on statutory authority to serve process outside it, and that Order 8 Rule 1(e)(i) and (h) of the Lagos High Court Rules supplied that authority here. He argued that the Appellant pleaded that the first Respondent, a UK bank, carried on its international banking business in Lagos through the second Respondent as its agent and representative. At this preliminary stage those averments must be taken as correct (Onafowokan v Wema Bank (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt 1260) 24), and the Court of Appeal itself found that the second Respondent acted as the first Respondent’s agent and go-between with the permission of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Since the Appellant was persuaded in Lagos to open the account, the contract was made through an agent in Lagos, bringing the claim within Order 8 Rule 1(e)(i).
Counsel further contended that the first Respondent was a necessary party to the action against the second Respondent, who was served within jurisdiction, because it was closely connected to the entire contract (Azubuike v PDP (2014) LPELR 22258 (SC), bringing the claim within Order 8 Rule 1(h)). He also argued that the action contained a foreign element and so fell within private international law and that the Court of Appeal failed to consider Section 10 of the High Court Law of Lagos State, which empowers the court to assume jurisdiction over wrongs committed outside the state. Relying on Ellinger v Guinness, Mahon & Co., he concluded that service on the first Respondent was proper and valid.
Counsel to the Respondents submitted that the Appellant’s claims, which concern the dishonour in London of cheques drawn in Pounds Sterling by a bank carrying on business in London, lacked sufficient connection to Lagos State or Nigeria to justify the High Court of Lagos State exercising jurisdiction. He argued that Order 8 Rule 1 of the High Court Rules was of no help to the Appellant, since it applies to contracts to be performed within jurisdiction or to foreign parties who carry on business within it, and neither situation arose here. In particular, the banker/customer contract was not made within jurisdiction or through the second Respondent as an agent carrying on banking business, because the second Respondent was not set up to carry on banking business and did not do so within the meaning of Section 66 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act.
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal succeeded and was allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Judicial Division, was set aside. The matter was remitted to the High Court of Lagos State for continuation of proceedings on the claims of the Appellant.
RATIO:
BANKING LAW-BANKING BUSINESS: What constitutes an established place of business of a bank?
“The question of what constitutes an established place of business of a bank fell to be decided in South India Shipping vs Export-Import Bank of Korea (1985) 1 WLR 585. Here, the bank did not carry on the recognised banking practices of accepting deposits and making loans. What it did have, however, were premises and staff within the jurisdiction; it conducted external relations with other banks; it carried out the necessary line of enquiries prior to obtaining loans for clients; it sought to publicise the bank, and it encouraged trade between the United Kingdom and Korea. The Court held that “… a company established a place of business within Great Britain if it carried on part of its business activities within the jurisdiction and it was not necessary for those activities to be either a substantial part of or more than incidental to the main objects of the company.” Accordingly, it was held that the Export-Import Bank of Korea had established a place of business within Great Britain.
Thus, it is not until the first Respondent receives deposits from its customers or operates the accounts of its customers from the office of the second Respondent that it will be held to have an established place of business there. It is enough that it used the office of the second Respondent as an outpost for the purposes of soliciting for customers and for maintaining confidentiality and ease of communication and exchange of documents and as a point of contact for its customers. The office of the second Respondent constituted an established place of business of the first Respondent within jurisdiction.” Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J. S. C.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
