The Central Bank of Nigeria and the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation, on Monday, challenged the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, to hear a suit jointly filed by Aso Savings & Loans Plc and Union Homes Savings & Loans Plc over the revocation of their licences.

CBN’s lawyer, Onyeka Ezeah, and NDIC’s counsel, Abubakar Shehu, raised the objection before Justice Emeka Nwite shortly after the case was called for defendants to show cause.

The judge had, on December 29, declined to grant a motion ex parte filed by Aso Savings and Union Homes seeking to stop the CBN and NDIC from taking any further action regarding the recent revocation of their operating licences.

The judge, in a ruling on the plaintiffs’ ex parte motion, moved by their lawyer, Joseph Silas, rather held that the interests of justice would be better served by giving the defendants notice to show cause why the relief should not be granted.

The judge then adjourned the matter until January 5 for the defendants (CBN and NDIC) to show cause.

When the matter was called on Monday, Mr Silas informed the court that the case was fixed for the defendants to show cause. The lawyer told the court that the CBN served on them an affidavit to show cause, a notice of preliminary objection, and a counter-affidavit to their originating summons.

He added that earlier in the morning, the NDIC served them with a counter-affidavit and a preliminary objection.

Mr Silas, however, restated that today’s hearing was for the defendants, especially the NDIC, to show cause why their application should not be granted. He said that, based on what the NDIC served on them, the agency had not shown any cause.

He said that, though the CBN revoked their licences, they had 30 days to appeal against the apex bank’s action, and that they needed to restrain NDIC from liquidating the two mortgage financial institutions until the hearing and determination of the substantive suit.

The lawyer argued that if the NDIC were allowed to liquidate the plaintiffs and, in the final decision, the court found that the CBN’s action was unlawful, his clients would have been prejudiced. He therefore sought an application for the parties to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the matter.

But Ms Ezeah opposed Mr Silas’ application. According to her, counsel for the plaintiffs is already delving into the issue with such an application.

“We have a matter of jurisdiction here,” she said.

Ms Ezeah, who described jurisdiction as “the livewire of a case”, argued that this had to be settled first.

Citing a 2022 case between Waziri and PDP, the lawyer said the Supreme Court held that jurisdictional issues should be decided before any other matter.

Mr Shehu, who appeared for NDIC, aligned with Ms Ezeah’s submission. He insisted that the corporation was acting within its statutory powers. The lawyer told the court that they had equally filed a preliminary objection and that the application was ripe for hearing.

“What should be done now is to adjourn for a date to allow counsel for the plaintiffs to respond so that our applications can be heard,” he said.

Responding, Mr Silas said that while the case was pending, the NDIC was still carrying out its liquidation.

“All we are advocating for is for parties to stay action,” he said, citing a case of Savannah Bank to back his argument.

Mr Shehu, however, said that the court was aware that, as soon as the licences of financial institutions are revoked, the NDIC is empowered to take over in the interest of depositors.

But Mr Silas explained that the law gives the plaintiffs a 30-day window to challenge the CBN’s actions, but that the NDIC “is only predicating its actions on the CBN”, urging that “they should allow the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs will surely succeed”.

The lawyer also argued that their application was in the interest of the depositors “because the only amount NDIC can pay to a depositor is the sum of N2 million, even if the depositor had N1 billion with the plaintiffs”.

Mr Shehu said the NDIC’s action became necessary because the depositors were unable to access their funds. He said that, if the plaintiffs won the case, the shareholders could sue for damages.

“That is what they are entitled to if they succeeded at the end,” he said.

The judge, however, asked Mr Silas whether it would be fair to make any order when the defendants had filed preliminary objections challenging the court’s jurisdiction.

“What we are trying to do is to preserve the res, my lord,” the lawyer responded.

“I don’t want to embark on exercise in futility, and that is why I am being careful,” the judge said.

The judge, who described jurisdiction as a threshold issue in a case, adjourned the matter until January 21 for a hearing on the defendants’ preliminary objections.

Aso Savings, Union Homes, Ridhwan Hamza, and Ismaila Adamu are the first to fourth plaintiffs, respectively, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2776/2025. The plaintiffs had sued the CBN and the NDIC as the first and second defendants, respectively.

In the ex parte motion, dated December 22 but filed December 23 by Mr Silas, they sought an order restraining the defendants from taking further steps on the purported revocation of the operational licence of the first and second plaintiffs, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice and an order barring the defendants from enforcing their unlawful decision in any way, form or manner, against the first and second plaintiff, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice.

Given a four-ground argument, the lawyer argued that the CBN did not comply with the condition precedent to exercising its power to revoke the operating licences of the first and second plaintiffs.

Mr Silas submitted that the NDIC also, without allowing the two mortgage institutions to exhaust their rights of action, moved to curtail those rights by attempting to take over the first and second plaintiffs.

“That if the defendants/respondents are not restrained, they will impose upon the plaintiffs/applicants their unlawful decisions in an irreversible way. That it is necessary to restrain the defendants/respondents from taking any other step in the interest of justice,” the lawyer said.

(NAN)