Facts:

By a Subcontract, which the Appellant described as unsigned, the Respondent agreed to provide the Appellant with its vessel, Bourbon Diamond, subject to the terms of the Subcontract dated 30/1/2015. Bourbon Diamond was delivered to the Appellant on 26/3/2016 and it was redelivered to the Respondent on 27/5/2017 with certificates of on-hire and off-hire. By the redelivery, the Subcontract came to an end. The Respondent issued invoices on the Appellant for the payment of charter hire on Bourbon Diamond which had amounted to US$525,482.26 and ₦173,956,232.17. The Respondent relied on several letters in which the Appellant was said to have admitted to its indebtedness. Concerned that the Appellant would dissipate its assets, especially funds in its bank accounts that constitute the proceeds from the use of Bourbon Diamond, before the full recovery of its admitted debt, the Respondent by the Originating Motion ex parte, sought pre-emptive remedies in form of a Mareva injunction against the Appellant’s assets, which was heard and granted by the trial Court.

The Appellant was served with the Memoranda of Claim and Settlement claiming for the recovery of its admitted indebtedness, the application for interlocutory injunction and Order of the lower Court. Upon service with the ex parte order of the lower Court, the Appellant filed an application seeking to strike out the suit for lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative, and in the event that the Court finds that it has jurisdiction, an order setting aside the ex parte order of the Court. The position of the Appellant was that the subject matter of the suit involved the hire of the vessel, Bourbon Diamond, to engage in oil field/oil mining operations in OML 130 and the deepwater offshore oil fields of Nigeria. The Appellant contended that the relevant documents showed that the subject matter of the Subcontract and the On and Off-Hire Certificate was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to determine all claims associated with the terms of the agreement, having regard to the provisions of Section 251 (1) (g) and (n) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended). The Respondent filed its Counter-affidavit and written address to this application, to which the Appellant responded by filing a Further Affidavit and written address in support of its application. The Respondent filed a further written address. Both parties addressed the issue of the jurisdiction of the trial Court in adjudicating the matter.

In its ruling, the trial Court discharged the mareva injunction but made no pronouncement in respect of the contention on its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned trial Judge, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.