Nigeria: Securities And Exchange Commission v Kasunmu: A Capital Market Lesson Half Learnt

Last Updated: 23 November 2018
Article by Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo

Introduction

The case of SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V PROFESSOR A.B. KASUNMU, SAN1 was decided by the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal on 6th November, 2008 and is a that case raised, amongst other issues, two very significant capital market issues arising from the now repealed Investments and Securities Act 1999. The first issue raised in the case concerns the registration of legal practitioners as Capital Market Operators by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The other issue and one that even with the repeal of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 by the Investments and Securities Act 2007 ("ISA") is still significant today, is the jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal over certain matters, in relation to that of the Federal High Court.

With the enactment of the ISA the first issue mentioned above has been legislatively addressed and is today not a live issue in capital market practice, except for academic and historical purposes. This is because under Rule 178 of the SEC Rules and Regulations made pursuant to the ISA, legal practitioners are subject to registration with the SEC where their opinions impact directly on capital market transactions. The only issue which may perhaps arise for debate is the interpretation of when a legal practitioner's opinion will "impact directly" on a capital market transaction. That issue is however outside the purview of this paper. On this issue therefore, it is safe to say that one of the two lessons from the two major issues arising from the decision of the court in SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V PROFESSOR A.B. KASUNMU, SAN has been learnt.

On the other hand, the second issue is one that even though seemingly addressed by the re-enactment of the ISA can still be described as unresolved by the ISA and in a sense, leaves an axe dangling over the jurisdiction of the IST with respect to certain matters under the ISA that have been prescribed to be within the jurisdiction of the IST. It is this second issue of the jurisdiction of the IST that will be considered below in the light of that of the Federal High Court.

FACTS

Before addressing the issues in the case, for a more comprehensive appraisal of the case it will be useful to briefly summarise the facts. The Respondent (Professor AB Kasunmu, SAN), who was the Plaintiff at the Federal High Court, was an external solicitor to Chartered Bank Plc. In 2001 the Bank applied to the SEC for permission to raise funds from the capital market. Before this application, the Bank had informed the Respondent that he would be the Bank's solicitor to the public issue and he was in agreement with this. While the Bank's application before the SEC was pending, the SEC informed the Bank that only legal practitioners that were accredited and registered by the SEC could act as solicitors to the Bank for its public issue. When the Bank informed the Respondent of this development, the Respondent took the view that he did not have to register with the SEC before he could act as a solicitor to the Bank's public issue.

The SEC did not share the Respondent's view and did not compromise its original stance that the Respondent had to be accredited and registered before he could act as a solicitor to the issue and consequently the Bank proceeded with its public issue without the Respondent as solicitor to the issue. Aggrieved at the turn of events, the Respondent proceeded to take out an action against the SEC at the Federal High Court, seeking amongst other things, a declaration that the SEC had no right or power to require him, being a legal practitioner, to be accredited and registered by the SEC before he could validly act as a solicitor to a company in a public issue. An issue, which arose in the case and is the focus of this paper, was the jurisdiction of the IST under section 242 of the now repealed Investments and Securities Act 1999.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE INVESTMENTS AND SECURITIES TRIBUNAL

THE OLD LAW: INVESTMENTS AND SECURITIES ACT 1999

The jurisdiction of the IST was derived from the provisions of section 242 of the Investments and Securities Act 1999. That section provided that:

"Save as provided elsewhere in this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Tribunal constituted under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred on the Tribunal by or under this Act."

Reading the above provision, it is clear that the intention of the legislative draftsman was to keep all matters arising from or under the operation of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 within the exclusive jurisdiction of the IST. Such disputes included but were not limited to disputes between capital market participants as well as between capital market operators or participants and the SEC, as in the case being discussed here. The underlying rationale for wanting to vest exclusive jurisdiction to entertain all capital market matters arising out of the operation of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 in the IST is certainly laudable. The idea was to keep capital market disputes, in which time is usually of the essence, out of the normal court system, which is known for delays, that in some cases are commercially crippling and may be worthless to the victor by the time a final decision is made by the court. Also, because of the specialised capital market related qualifications that, by law, the members of the IST must possess, which are not applicable to High Court judges, the IST is more likely, or at least, presumed to be more experienced and better equipped to deal with capital market matters.

However, section 242 of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 being such a wide reaching provision did not seem to consider the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, in particular, sections 6(6)(b) and 251 thereof. The questions as to the jurisdiction of the IST arose out of the exclusively all-encompassing manner in which section 242 of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 was couched, despite the provisions of sections 6(6)(b) and 251 the Constitution.

Section 6(6)(b) is the general section that gives specified courts in Nigeria, in this case the Federal High Court, the power to adjudicate over and determine the civil rights and obligations of persons and government bodies in matters arising before the court. One thing that is crucial to note about section 6 is that in its provision for the power and jurisdiction of certain courts to adjudicate over matters, it does not include the IST. On its part, section 251 provides for the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, "to the exclusion of every other court", over certain causes and matters. In particular, section 251(r) provides that, to the exclusion of any other court, the Federal High Court shall have jurisdiction over:

"any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal government or any of its agencies"

When the provisions of sections 242 of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 and section 251(r) of the Constitution are juxtaposed, it is clear that they both had a singular objective, which was to confer exclusive jurisdiction over matters to which they relate on the IST and Federal High Court respectively. Considering the fact that many capital market disputes arising from the operation of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 usually involve the SEC as the principal Claimant or Defendant, it is clear that section 242 of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 was starkly irreconcilable with section 251(r) of the Constitution with respect to disputes involving the SEC.

This irreconcilability of section 242 of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 and Sections 6(6)(b) and 251(r) of the Constitution led to the Court of Appeal raising the question that, can the jurisdiction of the Federal High court's, which is derived from the constitution, be ousted by an Act of Parliament? The answer to this question was and is still not in dispute. It is in the negative. In resolving this question, the Court of Appeal per Galinje, JCA held as follows:

"On the issue of jurisdiction the learned trial judge at page 387 of the Record of Appeal, in his judgment said:

"It is pertinent to say that the Federal High Court is a creature of the Constitution, Section 249 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 established this Court. The scope and extent of the court's jurisdiction and powers are spelt out in Section 251 and 252 of the same constitution. It is therefore the same constitution that can oust or limit its jurisdiction and curtail its powers...It is my view that section 242 of the Act which is now deemed to be Act of the National Assembly and not a constitutional provision and in so far as it has provided that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the tribunal constituted under the Decree is empowered to determine is inconsistent with the provision of section 6 (6) (b) of the aforesaid constitution which provision has conferred on this Court judicial powers on all matters between persons, or between government or authority and to any person in Nigeria and to all actions and proceedings relating thereto, for the determination of any question as to civil rights and obligations of that person. That section to the extent that it purports to oust the jurisdiction of this court is invalid."

I totally agree with the learned trial Judge that any Act of parliament that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is void to the extent of such inconsistency."

The implication of the portion of the decision of the Court of Appeal reproduced above is that section 242 of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 was voided by the court to the extent of its inconsistency with sections 6(6)(b) and 251(r) of the Constitution. Consequently, the objective of the Investments and Securities Act 1999 to restrict the adjudication over capital market disputes to the IST was rendered obsolete by the decision of the Court and for good constitutional reason. The Investments and Securities Act 1999 could not possibly have derogated from the provisions of the Constitution in sections 6(6)(b) and 251(r) with respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to hear matters that that Act sought to bring within the exclusive jurisdiction of the IST.

THE CURRENT LAW: INVESTMENTS AND SECURITIES ACT 2007

To discuss the jurisdiction of the IST as provided under the current regime of the ISA, it will be necessary to reproduce the particular section of the ISA provides for the jurisdiction of the IST. It is section 284 and it provides as follows:

"The Tribunal shall to the exclusion of any other court of law or body in Nigeria, exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine any question of law or dispute involving:

(a) A decision or determination of the Commission in the operation and application of this Act, and in particular, relating to any dispute:

(i) Between Capital Market Operators;

(ii) Between capital market operators and their clients;

(iii) Between an investor and a securities exchange or capital trade point or clearing and settlement agency;

(iv) Between capital market operators and self regulatory organization;

(b) The commission and a self regulatory organization

(c) A capital market operator and the commission

(d) An issuer of securities and the commission; and

(e) Disputes arising from the administration, management and operation of collective investment schemes" (Underlining for emphasis)

Looking at the provisions of section 284, it is difficult to see, in substance, the difference between the section and the repealed section 242 of the Investments and Securities Act 1999. The substance and underlying objective of the two sections is the same. It is the provision for the jurisdiction of the IST over capital market disputes, to the exclusion of any other court in Nigeria. Section 284 of the ISA only goes one step further than the old section 242 by outlining the categories of disputes which may arise under or from the operation of the ISA. Again, like with section 242 of the Investments and Securities Act 1999, the legislative draftsman, with section 284 of the ISA, has completely ignored the provisions and implications of sections 6(6)(b) and 251(r) of the Constitution on the legality of ousting the jurisdiction of the court to adjudicate over matters to which those sections of the constitution relate.

Without delving into the unpredictable abyss that is the realm of speculation, it is reasonably safe to say that section 284 of the ISA as it stands, has a judicial target on it that if activated by the trigger of a preliminary objection, as is now customary in litigation in Nigeria, will suffer the same fate as its predecessor, section 242 of the Investments and Securities Act 1999. The reason for this contention is not far-fetched. As previously stated, as the substance of the two sections is essentially the same, once sections 6(6)(b) and 251(r) of the Constitution remain in force and the constitutional jurisprudence in Nigeria remains that the Constitution, being the grundnorm of the Nigerian legal system, is superior to all other laws, any law that purports to oust the constitutionally provided jurisdiction of the courts to adjudicate over certain matters will be voidable.

Considering the above, it is clear that in re-enacting the ISA, particularly with regards to the jurisdiction of the IST, especially the exclusivity of it, the consequence of the decision of the Court of Appeal in SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION V PROFESSOR A.B. KASUNMU, SAN, no lesson was learnt by the legislative draftsman on the road to prescribing a specified forum for the adjudication of capital market disputes arising from or under the ISA.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the law is clear and has been for a while, that any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is void to the extent of such inconsistency. See ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ABIA STATE V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, FEDERATION (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265. With that in mind, a critical question is, without any constitutional amendment to the present Constitution, can any law purport to oust the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain capital

market matters and vest such jurisdiction exclusively in the IST? It is difficult to see how the answer to this is not in the negative. The need for capital market disputes to be resolved by experienced capital market adjudicators in the shortest possible time is certainly appreciable in the light of the significant consequences of unnecessary delays inherent in the court system. However, it seems the golden formula that solves the problem of this need remains elusive.

Footnotes

1 (2009) 10 NWLR (PT 1150) 509

Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo is the Managing Partner of Twelve Legal, a Nigerian Commercial Law Firm.

October 2018

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions