A Passionate Call to the Chief Judges to stem this dangerous tide of jurisdictional Usurpation
By Olumide Babalola
In January 2025, when a financial institution was threatened with contempt proceedings and garnishee proceedings for their alleged failure to comply with an order of a Customary Court sitting in Oyo State, we were briefed to enter appearance, and I had to personally attend the court to contain the situation.
The journey was about 40 minutes out of Ibadan to a remote village or town known as “Iroko.” On a lighter note, Google map could not even take me there; navigation satellite rather suggested Iroko TV
It was my first appearance at a customary court—an unfamiliar terrain and under unimagined circumstances—garnishee proceedings bearing threatened contempt proceedings against our client.
Happily, I was able to get the client discharged, but the demeanour of the learned judges confirmed to me that such proceedings might have become a staple cause in their courts. These courts are historically and primarily tasked with resolving issues related to land disputes, succession, inheritance, and matrimonial causes based on customary law, as they have become an integral part of the country’s judicial structure. However, a troubling trend has emerged in recent years: cases involving Erroneous bank transfers are being litigated in these same courts, raising serious questions about the boundaries of their jurisdiction and the proper application of the law.
Customary Courts and Their Limited Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of customary courts in Nigeria is clearly defined and confined to matters relating to native law and custom. Disputes involving land ownership, inheritance rights, and matrimonial issues are the bread and butter of customary courts, as these matters are deeply connected to the social fabric and traditions of local communities. However, an emerging and concerning phenomenon has seen matters unrelated to customary law, such as disputes over erroneous bank transfers, being brought before these courts. Such disputes are often based on banking services, torts of negligence, or breaches of contract—none of which fall within the scope of native law or custom. These cases, rooted in modern financial transactions and contract law, do not have the cultural traditional relevance that would justify their adjudication by customary courts.
Jurisdictional Conflict: The Case of Erroneous Bank Transfers
Erroneous bank transfers typically arise when funds are transferred in error from one bank customer’s account to another, often due to clerical mistakes or technological glitches. The legal remedy for such issues typically lies in contract law, tort law, or consumer protection statutes, and the proper venue for these cases is a court with general jurisdiction over civil matters, such as a High Court or a Magistrates Court. Customary courts, on the other hand, are not equipped or authorized to adjudicate on these matters, as they fall outside the realm of customary or native law.vThe growing trend of litigating banking-related issues in customary courts, particularly those concerning erroneous bank transfers, represents a jurisdictional overreach that risks undermining the integrity of the judicial system. It is critical to note that customary courts do not have the statutory or legal framework to address matters such as breaches of banking contracts or negligence claims, which are inherently tied to modern commercial law
Garnishee Proceedings and Enforcement of Judgments The problem is further compounded by the practice of enforcing judgments issued by customary courts through garnishee proceedings. Garnishee proceedings, governed by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (SCPA), are meant to be used by specific courts—namely, the High Courts and Magistrate Courts. The SCPA’s interpretation section explicitly states that only these two types of courts have the jurisdiction to issue Garnishee Orders to show cause, a process that allows creditors to collect debt directly from a third party holding the debtor’s funds, such as a bank.
Yet we are witnessing situations where customary courts, in the course of enforcing judgments, are invoking garnishee proceedings. This raises serious concerns, as these courts do not have the authority to do so under the SCPA, and such actions risk violating the clear division of responsibilities between different levels of the Nigerian court system.
Further complicating matters, the Customary Court Rules, including those under the Customary Courts Law of Lagos State, specifically vest the enforcement of money judgments with magistrate courts. For instance, Order 9 Rule 1 of the Lagos State Customary Court Rules clearly states that only Magistrates’ Courts have the power to enforce monetary judgments. This misalignment between the customary courts and the relevant enforcement mechanisms suggests a serious legal inconsistency that undermines
the integrity of the enforcement process.
The Need for Judicial Reassessment
The judicial system in Nigeria, as in any country, thrives on clarity, consistency, and adherence to established legal principles. The increasing trend of bringing banking and financial disputes, such as erroneous bank transfers, before customary courts represents a disturbing erosion of this principle. Customary courts were not designed to adjudicate on issues pertaining to modern financial transactions, and their involvement in such matters only risks clouding their true purpose: to preserve and enforce native law and customs.
It is, therefore, crucial for the Chief Judges of respective states to address this jurisdictional issue. The involvement of customary courts in matters beyond their statutory remit not only jeopardizes the integrity of the judicial system but also creates confusion among litigants about the proper forum for their disputes. The judiciary must take steps to reaffirm the limited scope of customary courts and ensure that matters involving banking errors, breaches of contract, and negligence are directed to the appropriate courts with the necessary jurisdiction and expertise.
Our Colleagues at the Bar need to do better
In 2025, it is unimaginable that we would be arguing and filing objections on whether or not customary courts have jurisdiction to entertain banker/customer disputes. The civil jurisdiction of these courts is identical nationwide. For context, section 22 and the first schedule of the Customary Courts Law, Chapter C19, Laws Of Lagos State, 2015 prescribe the court’s jurisdiction, thus:
“(1) Unlimited jurisdiction in matrimonial causes and other matters between persons married under Customary Law or arising from or connected with a union contracted under Customary Law and related matters.
(2) Unlimited jurisdiction in suits relating to the guardianship and custody of children under customary law.
(3) A Customary Court shall have jurisdiction in causes and matters relating to inheritance upon intestacy and the administration of intestate estates under Customary Law, provided that the Customary Court shall not have jurisdiction where the value of the property or claim exceeds Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00).
(4) A Customary Court shall have civil jurisdiction in other causes and matters as conferred under any bye-law passed by a local government, provided the claim does not exceed Five Hundred Thousand Naira (N500,000.00).”
What runs through the provision is “customary law,” hence any matter that does not relate to customary law is beyond the reach of customary courts. Banker/customer relationships are within the precinct of banking law, tort law, and the law of contract, except the reversal is to be made from a bank registered under customary law—I doubt if one exists in Nigeria.
Recommendations for Reform
The Chief Judges should issue directives or practice notes clarifying the jurisdictional limits of customary courts, particularly concerning banking and financial disputes. These directives should emphasize that customary courts are not competent to adjudicate matters involving erroneous bank transfers, contract disputes, or tort claims.
Conclusion
The judiciary is the cornerstone of any legal system, and it is vital that each level of the court system remains true to its function. While customary courts serve an important role in preserving and adjudicating matters of native law and custom, it is critical that their jurisdiction remain limited to those areas. The encroachment of banking and commercial disputes into these courts poses a threat to the clarity and efficiency of Nigeria’s judicial system. The Chief Judges of the respective states must take immediate action to clarify the jurisdiction of customary courts and prevent further jurisdictional overreach, ensuring that the legal system remains fair, transparent, and capable of handling the complex issues of modern society. If we are not careful, we may wake up one day to a maritime of fundamental rights matters before the customary courts. Let’s take heed while the sun is still out
