1. The Appellant instituted an interpleader summons by means of an originating summons in the Katsina State High Court sitting at Funtua in respect of an order for attachment and auction sale of a property made by the Upper Area Court No. 2 Funtua.
2. That the adjudicatory power/jurisdiction conferred on the High Court of a State by dint of Section 272(2) of the 1999 Constitution is unlimited and the fact that it can entertain an originating summons in its original jurisdiction does not mean it should rob an inferior Court of competent jurisdiction its own jurisdiction.
NASARA vs. ALARAMMA & ORS.(2022)LCN/17173(CA)
ISSUE: INTERPLEADER SUMMONS-
Whether a High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an interpleader summons in its original jurisdiction under Section 272(2) of the 1999 Constitution in respect of an order for attachment and auction sale of a property made by an inferior Court; Whether interpleader proceedings can only be entertained by the Court that adjudicated on the substantive matter(Issue is mine)
PRINCIPLE:
“The sole question in this appeal involves an interpretation of the provisions of Section 272(1) and (2) which deal with the jurisdiction of the High Court of a State, the meaning and procedural requirements of interpleaders.
Section 272(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) reads:
“272(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person.
(2) The reference to civil and criminal proceedings in this Section include a reference to the proceedings which originate in the High Court of a State and those which are brought before the High Court to be dealt with by the Court in the exercise of its appellate or supervisory jurisdiction.”
Furthermore, and in relation to this appeal, the 8th Edition of the Black’s Law Dictionary at page 837 gives a relevant meaning of interplead as (1) (of a claimant) to assert one’s own claim regarding property or an issue already before the Court.
In the instant case, the Appellant was indeed not a party to the claims between the 1st and 3rd Respondents as Judgment Creditor and Judgment Debtor respectively which was determined to the stage of attachment, execution and sale by the Upper Area Court No.2 Funtua. It is therefore that same Court, that is the Upper Area Court No. 2 Funtua that possesses the original jurisdiction to entertain interpleader’s proceedings in relation to the suit settled by it between the 1st and 3rd Respondents. As pointed out by the lower Court and rightly too by the learned counsel to the Respondents the lower Court can only entertain appellate and/or supervisory jurisdiction on the interpleader’s proceedings of the Appellant since it is only the Upper Area Court No. 2 that retains original jurisdiction to entertain such interpleader’s summons.
The belief of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the High Court, that is the lower Court can entertain the interpleader’s intervention by dint of the fact that any originating summons could be filed in the lower Court is procedurally limited by the fact that an interpleader’s proceedings would only be entertained by the Court that adjudicated on the main or substantive proceeding which brought about the interpleader’s intervention.
In the instant case therefore, the original jurisdiction of the lower Court under Section 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) does not extend to interpleader’s application of suits or cases that were determined by the Upper Sharia Court.
Learned counsel for the Respondents rightly supported his arguments with the provision of Order 21 Rule 1 of the Sharia (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2008 of Katsina State which is in pari materia with the provision of Order VI Rule 9 Judgment (Enforcement) Rules, Rules of Court, under Section 94 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, Cap. 56, LFN, 2004. The provision states thus:
“Any person who claims that any property, whether movable or immovable, which has been attached is not liable to be sold in execution of a judgment debtor, may apply to the Court which issued the writ of attachment and sale for the issue of a summons calling upon the Judgment creditor to appear before the Court on a date and at hour specified in the summons to show cause why the property should not be released from the attachment.”
In the circumstance, the learned trial Judge was right to have held at page 76 of the records that:
“The claimant in this suit is by way of interpleader proceedings is urging this Court to descend and interfere with the execution of the judgment of Upper Sharia Court No. 2 Funtua in an application he ought to have file (sic) filed before the lower Court which this Court can only decide on its appellate jurisdiction which will be neater, tidier and better in the interest of justice.
In view of the above, this Court declined jurisdiction and resolve in favour of the 1st and 3rd defendants. The suit is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.”
The only issue in this appeal is resolved against the Appellant. This appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. N30,000 costs is awarded to the 1st and 3rd Respondents.” Per OWOADE, JCA.