Facts:

This is an appeal against the bench ruling of the Federal High Court (lower court), Lagos Judicial Division, Coram Kuewumi, J., delivered on February 19, 2016.

The Appellant (as Applicant in the lower court) and the Respondent (as Respondent in the lower court) enjoyed a relationship of banker and customer by virtue of which credit facilities were advanced to the Respondent and some of its associated companies. Further to the settlement of its indebtedness, the Respondent and the said associated companies commenced negotiations with the Appellant, which failed on the ground that what the Appellant contended was contrary to the terms and conditions reached upon negotiations. When the dispute could not be resolved, and the indebtedness, as claimed by the Appellant was not defrayed, the Appellant commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the Respondent, accompanied by ex-parte Motion and Motion on Notice.

The lower court upon hearing the motion ex parte ruled that it was inclined to hear from the debtor, the Respondent herein, before taking a decision on the application. Sequel to this, the lower court directed the Appellant to convert the Motion Exparte to Motion on Notice, and serve the Respondent along with the accompanying processes. But before the Respondent was served with all the processes, the Respondent brought a Motion on Notice to dismiss/strike out the petition before the lower Court, attacking the jurisdiction of the lower Court to entertain the matter, upon which the lower Court, adjourned the hearing of the Respondent’s application challenging the court’s jurisdiction to and further directed that the outcome of the court’s decision on the Respondent’s application will determine if the court will take any other pending application filed by the Appellant.

When the matter was heard by the lower Court, the Appellant’s Counsel informed the lower Court, that the lower court had adjourned to hear the Respondent’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the court to determine the Appellant’s petition, without affording parties the opportunity to canvass arguments with aid of decided authorities on the priority of applications before it. The Learned Senior Counsel had argued that for the lower Court, as now constituted, to follow the earlier position of Abang, J., or by isolating the application of Respondent for hearing in the circumstance of this case, would amount to a travesty of justice. This application was opposed by the Respondent’s Counsel, and in a bench ruling, the lower Court ruled that the Respondent’s application challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court would be taken first, and thereafter other issues, if any, would be considered.

Aggrieved by the said bench ruling, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.