The investments and securities tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over capital market and securities disputes

UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA (OKORO; OGUNWUMIJU; JAURO; OGBUINYA; UMAR, JJ.SC) FACTS Between 2007 and 2008, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (“the Appellant”) obtained two foreign loans: US$150 million from Merrill Lynch International and US$120 million from HSBC Bank Plc, amounting to approximately ₦30.477 billion. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“the Respondent”) alleged that, although the loans were ostensibly obtained to deepen the Appellant’s money-market operations, the funds were subsequently transferred to Union Trustees Ltd., the Appellant’s wholly owned subsidiary. Union Trustees Ltd. subsequently engaged Falcon Securities Ltd. under an Asset Management Agreement dated 14 July 2007. Using funds traceable to the loans, Falcon Securities purchased 609,852,000 units of the Appellant’s shares. The shares were later transferred to Union Trustees Ltd. under another Asset Management Agreement executed in 2009. The Respondent consequently commenced proceedings before the Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST) against the Appellant and other parties, alleging contraventions of the Investments and Securities Act 2007 and Rule 110 of the SEC Rules. Among other reliefs, the Respondent sought declarations that the defendants had engaged in a scheme or artifice to fund the purchase of the Appellant’s shares, create a false appearance of active trading, and undermine the integrity of the securities market. The Respondent’s case was that the arrangement enabled the Appellant, directly or indirectly, to finance the purchase of its own shares while retaining beneficial ownership of them. According to the Respondent, the transaction was designed to create a false and misleading appearance of active trading in the Appellant’s shares and thereby manipulate the market. The Respondent also alleged that the Appellant waived Commission on Turnover (COT) charges on the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees, further indicating that the transaction was undertaken for the Appellant’s benefit. The IST found the Appellant liable for market manipulation and granted the Respondent’s reliefs. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the IST and held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the issues raised for determination was: Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the jurisdiction of the Investment and Securities Tribunal (1ST) to hear and determine the action filed by the Respondent against the Appellant. ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the IST lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action because, notwithstanding the allegations of market manipulation, the substance of the dispute concerned the internal affairs and corporate governance of the Bank. Counsel contended that the allegations related principally to the manner in which the Appellant obtained and utilised the foreign loans; the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees; the purchase of the Appellant’s shares; the waiver of charges on the transactions; the duties and obligations of its directors and officers; and decisions purportedly taken by its Board. According to counsel, these matters were governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Counsel further argued that the reliefs sought by the Respondent could not be divorced from the underlying corporate transactions involving the Appellant, including the acquisition of its own shares, the alleged breach of the Bank’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, the fiduciary duties of its directors, and compliance with Central Bank regulations governing charges on banking transactions. Counsel finally submitted that the dispute was essentially one of company law and banking operations, rather than a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the ISA. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the lower court was correct in affirming the IST’s jurisdiction because the action was founded squarely on alleged violations of the Investments and Securities Act and the SEC Rules. Counsel submitted that the gravamen of the action was market manipulation and the protection of the integrity of the capital market, rather than the internal management of the Appellant. Counsel further submitted that the ISA specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction on the IST over disputes arising from the operation and application of the Act, and that the fact that the alleged scheme involved the acquisition of shares in the Appellant did not convert the dispute into one of corporate governance or take it outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction. Counsel maintained that the Appellant had procured foreign loans ostensibly for money-market operations but subsequently caused the funds to be transferred through Union Trustees and used to acquire a good unit of the Appellant’s shares through Falcon Securities Ltd. Counsel maintained that the transactions were structured through the Appellant’s subsidiary and other entities to conceal the Appellant’s beneficial interest in the shares and create the appearance of genuine and active trading in them. These acts, counsel submitted, constituted an artifice or device intended to manipulate the market and create a false or misleading appearance of active trading, contrary to the provisions of the ISA. DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA (OKORO; OGUNWUMIJU; JAURO; OGBUINYA; UMAR, JJ.SC) FACTS Between 2007 and 2008, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (“the Appellant”) obtained two foreign loans: US$150 million from Merrill Lynch International and US$120 million from HSBC Bank Plc, amounting to approximately ₦30.477 billion. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“the Respondent”) alleged that, although the loans were ostensibly obtained to deepen the Appellant’s money-market operations, the funds were subsequently transferred to Union Trustees Ltd., the Appellant’s wholly owned subsidiary. Union Trustees Ltd. subsequently engaged Falcon Securities Ltd. under an Asset Management Agreement dated 14 July 2007. Using funds traceable to the loans, Falcon Securities purchased 609,852,000 units of the Appellant’s shares. The shares were later transferred to Union Trustees Ltd. under another Asset Management Agreement executed in 2009. The Respondent consequently commenced proceedings before the Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST) against the Appellant and other parties, alleging contraventions of the Investments and Securities Act 2007 and Rule 110 of the SEC Rules. Among other reliefs, the Respondent sought declarations that the defendants had engaged in a scheme or artifice to fund the purchase of the Appellant’s shares, create a false appearance of active trading, and undermine the integrity of the securities market. The Respondent’s case was that the arrangement enabled the Appellant, directly or indirectly, to finance the purchase of its own shares while retaining beneficial ownership of them. According to the Respondent, the transaction was designed to create a false and misleading appearance of active trading in the Appellant’s shares and thereby manipulate the market. The Respondent also alleged that the Appellant waived Commission on Turnover (COT) charges on the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees, further indicating that the transaction was undertaken for the Appellant’s benefit. The IST found the Appellant liable for market manipulation and granted the Respondent’s reliefs. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the IST and held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the issues raised for determination was: Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the jurisdiction of the Investment and Securities Tribunal (1ST) to hear and determine the action filed by the Respondent against the Appellant. ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the IST lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action because, notwithstanding the allegations of market manipulation, the substance of the dispute concerned the internal affairs and corporate governance of the Bank. Counsel contended that the allegations related principally to the manner in which the Appellant obtained and utilised the foreign loans; the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees; the purchase of the Appellant’s shares; the waiver of charges on the transactions; the duties and obligations of its directors and officers; and decisions purportedly taken by its Board. According to counsel, these matters were governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Counsel further argued that the reliefs sought by the Respondent could not be divorced from the underlying corporate transactions involving the Appellant, including the acquisition of its own shares, the alleged breach of the Bank’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, the fiduciary duties of its directors, and compliance with Central Bank regulations governing charges on banking transactions. Counsel finally submitted that the dispute was essentially one of company law and banking operations, rather than a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the ISA. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the lower court was correct in affirming the IST’s jurisdiction because the action was founded squarely on alleged violations of the Investments and Securities Act and the SEC Rules. Counsel submitted that the gravamen of the action was market manipulation and the protection of the integrity of the capital market, rather than the internal management of the Appellant. Counsel further submitted that the ISA specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction on the IST over disputes arising from the operation and application of the Act, and that the fact that the alleged scheme involved the acquisition of shares in the Appellant did not convert the dispute into one of corporate governance or take it outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction. Counsel maintained that the Appellant had procured foreign loans ostensibly for money-market operations but subsequently caused the funds to be transferred through Union Trustees and used to acquire a good unit of the Appellant’s shares through Falcon Securities Ltd. Counsel maintained that the transactions were structured through the Appellant’s subsidiary and other entities to conceal the Appellant’s beneficial interest in the shares and create the appearance of genuine and active trading in them. These acts, counsel submitted, constituted an artifice or device intended to manipulate the market and create a false or misleading appearance of active trading, contrary to the provisions of the ISA. DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

(OKORO; OGUNWUMIJU; JAURO; OGBUINYA; UMAR, JJ.SC) FACTS Between 2007 and 2008, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (“the Appellant”) obtained two foreign loans: US$150 million from Merrill Lynch International and US$120 million from HSBC Bank Plc, amounting to approximately ₦30.477 billion. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“the Respondent”) alleged that, although the loans were ostensibly obtained to deepen the Appellant’s money-market operations, the funds were subsequently transferred to Union Trustees Ltd., the Appellant’s wholly owned subsidiary. Union Trustees Ltd. subsequently engaged Falcon Securities Ltd. under an Asset Management Agreement dated 14 July 2007. Using funds traceable to the loans, Falcon Securities purchased 609,852,000 units of the Appellant’s shares. The shares were later transferred to Union Trustees Ltd. under another Asset Management Agreement executed in 2009. The Respondent consequently commenced proceedings before the Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST) against the Appellant and other parties, alleging contraventions of the Investments and Securities Act 2007 and Rule 110 of the SEC Rules. Among other reliefs, the Respondent sought declarations that the defendants had engaged in a scheme or artifice to fund the purchase of the Appellant’s shares, create a false appearance of active trading, and undermine the integrity of the securities market. The Respondent’s case was that the arrangement enabled the Appellant, directly or indirectly, to finance the purchase of its own shares while retaining beneficial ownership of them. According to the Respondent, the transaction was designed to create a false and misleading appearance of active trading in the Appellant’s shares and thereby manipulate the market. The Respondent also alleged that the Appellant waived Commission on Turnover (COT) charges on the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees, further indicating that the transaction was undertaken for the Appellant’s benefit. The IST found the Appellant liable for market manipulation and granted the Respondent’s reliefs. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the IST and held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the issues raised for determination was: Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the jurisdiction of the Investment and Securities Tribunal (1ST) to hear and determine the action filed by the Respondent against the Appellant. ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the IST lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action because, notwithstanding the allegations of market manipulation, the substance of the dispute concerned the internal affairs and corporate governance of the Bank. Counsel contended that the allegations related principally to the manner in which the Appellant obtained and utilised the foreign loans; the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees; the purchase of the Appellant’s shares; the waiver of charges on the transactions; the duties and obligations of its directors and officers; and decisions purportedly taken by its Board. According to counsel, these matters were governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Counsel further argued that the reliefs sought by the Respondent could not be divorced from the underlying corporate transactions involving the Appellant, including the acquisition of its own shares, the alleged breach of the Bank’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, the fiduciary duties of its directors, and compliance with Central Bank regulations governing charges on banking transactions. Counsel finally submitted that the dispute was essentially one of company law and banking operations, rather than a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the ISA. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the lower court was correct in affirming the IST’s jurisdiction because the action was founded squarely on alleged violations of the Investments and Securities Act and the SEC Rules. Counsel submitted that the gravamen of the action was market manipulation and the protection of the integrity of the capital market, rather than the internal management of the Appellant. Counsel further submitted that the ISA specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction on the IST over disputes arising from the operation and application of the Act, and that the fact that the alleged scheme involved the acquisition of shares in the Appellant did not convert the dispute into one of corporate governance or take it outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction. Counsel maintained that the Appellant had procured foreign loans ostensibly for money-market operations but subsequently caused the funds to be transferred through Union Trustees and used to acquire a good unit of the Appellant’s shares through Falcon Securities Ltd. Counsel maintained that the transactions were structured through the Appellant’s subsidiary and other entities to conceal the Appellant’s beneficial interest in the shares and create the appearance of genuine and active trading in them. These acts, counsel submitted, constituted an artifice or device intended to manipulate the market and create a false or misleading appearance of active trading, contrary to the provisions of the ISA. DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

FACTS Between 2007 and 2008, Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (“the Appellant”) obtained two foreign loans: US$150 million from Merrill Lynch International and US$120 million from HSBC Bank Plc, amounting to approximately ₦30.477 billion. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“the Respondent”) alleged that, although the loans were ostensibly obtained to deepen the Appellant’s money-market operations, the funds were subsequently transferred to Union Trustees Ltd., the Appellant’s wholly owned subsidiary. Union Trustees Ltd. subsequently engaged Falcon Securities Ltd. under an Asset Management Agreement dated 14 July 2007. Using funds traceable to the loans, Falcon Securities purchased 609,852,000 units of the Appellant’s shares. The shares were later transferred to Union Trustees Ltd. under another Asset Management Agreement executed in 2009. The Respondent consequently commenced proceedings before the Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST) against the Appellant and other parties, alleging contraventions of the Investments and Securities Act 2007 and Rule 110 of the SEC Rules. Among other reliefs, the Respondent sought declarations that the defendants had engaged in a scheme or artifice to fund the purchase of the Appellant’s shares, create a false appearance of active trading, and undermine the integrity of the securities market. The Respondent’s case was that the arrangement enabled the Appellant, directly or indirectly, to finance the purchase of its own shares while retaining beneficial ownership of them. According to the Respondent, the transaction was designed to create a false and misleading appearance of active trading in the Appellant’s shares and thereby manipulate the market. The Respondent also alleged that the Appellant waived Commission on Turnover (COT) charges on the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees, further indicating that the transaction was undertaken for the Appellant’s benefit. The IST found the Appellant liable for market manipulation and granted the Respondent’s reliefs. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the IST and held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the issues raised for determination was: Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the jurisdiction of the Investment and Securities Tribunal (1ST) to hear and determine the action filed by the Respondent against the Appellant. ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the IST lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action because, notwithstanding the allegations of market manipulation, the substance of the dispute concerned the internal affairs and corporate governance of the Bank. Counsel contended that the allegations related principally to the manner in which the Appellant obtained and utilised the foreign loans; the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees; the purchase of the Appellant’s shares; the waiver of charges on the transactions; the duties and obligations of its directors and officers; and decisions purportedly taken by its Board. According to counsel, these matters were governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Counsel further argued that the reliefs sought by the Respondent could not be divorced from the underlying corporate transactions involving the Appellant, including the acquisition of its own shares, the alleged breach of the Bank’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, the fiduciary duties of its directors, and compliance with Central Bank regulations governing charges on banking transactions. Counsel finally submitted that the dispute was essentially one of company law and banking operations, rather than a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the ISA. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the lower court was correct in affirming the IST’s jurisdiction because the action was founded squarely on alleged violations of the Investments and Securities Act and the SEC Rules. Counsel submitted that the gravamen of the action was market manipulation and the protection of the integrity of the capital market, rather than the internal management of the Appellant. Counsel further submitted that the ISA specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction on the IST over disputes arising from the operation and application of the Act, and that the fact that the alleged scheme involved the acquisition of shares in the Appellant did not convert the dispute into one of corporate governance or take it outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction. Counsel maintained that the Appellant had procured foreign loans ostensibly for money-market operations but subsequently caused the funds to be transferred through Union Trustees and used to acquire a good unit of the Appellant’s shares through Falcon Securities Ltd. Counsel maintained that the transactions were structured through the Appellant’s subsidiary and other entities to conceal the Appellant’s beneficial interest in the shares and create the appearance of genuine and active trading in them. These acts, counsel submitted, constituted an artifice or device intended to manipulate the market and create a false or misleading appearance of active trading, contrary to the provisions of the ISA. DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

The Respondent consequently commenced proceedings before the Investments and Securities Tribunal (IST) against the Appellant and other parties, alleging contraventions of the Investments and Securities Act 2007 and Rule 110 of the SEC Rules. Among other reliefs, the Respondent sought declarations that the defendants had engaged in a scheme or artifice to fund the purchase of the Appellant’s shares, create a false appearance of active trading, and undermine the integrity of the securities market. The Respondent’s case was that the arrangement enabled the Appellant, directly or indirectly, to finance the purchase of its own shares while retaining beneficial ownership of them. According to the Respondent, the transaction was designed to create a false and misleading appearance of active trading in the Appellant’s shares and thereby manipulate the market. The Respondent also alleged that the Appellant waived Commission on Turnover (COT) charges on the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees, further indicating that the transaction was undertaken for the Appellant’s benefit. The IST found the Appellant liable for market manipulation and granted the Respondent’s reliefs. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the IST and held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the issues raised for determination was: Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the jurisdiction of the Investment and Securities Tribunal (1ST) to hear and determine the action filed by the Respondent against the Appellant. ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the IST lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action because, notwithstanding the allegations of market manipulation, the substance of the dispute concerned the internal affairs and corporate governance of the Bank. Counsel contended that the allegations related principally to the manner in which the Appellant obtained and utilised the foreign loans; the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees; the purchase of the Appellant’s shares; the waiver of charges on the transactions; the duties and obligations of its directors and officers; and decisions purportedly taken by its Board. According to counsel, these matters were governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Counsel further argued that the reliefs sought by the Respondent could not be divorced from the underlying corporate transactions involving the Appellant, including the acquisition of its own shares, the alleged breach of the Bank’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, the fiduciary duties of its directors, and compliance with Central Bank regulations governing charges on banking transactions. Counsel finally submitted that the dispute was essentially one of company law and banking operations, rather than a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the ISA. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the lower court was correct in affirming the IST’s jurisdiction because the action was founded squarely on alleged violations of the Investments and Securities Act and the SEC Rules. Counsel submitted that the gravamen of the action was market manipulation and the protection of the integrity of the capital market, rather than the internal management of the Appellant. Counsel further submitted that the ISA specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction on the IST over disputes arising from the operation and application of the Act, and that the fact that the alleged scheme involved the acquisition of shares in the Appellant did not convert the dispute into one of corporate governance or take it outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction. Counsel maintained that the Appellant had procured foreign loans ostensibly for money-market operations but subsequently caused the funds to be transferred through Union Trustees and used to acquire a good unit of the Appellant’s shares through Falcon Securities Ltd. Counsel maintained that the transactions were structured through the Appellant’s subsidiary and other entities to conceal the Appellant’s beneficial interest in the shares and create the appearance of genuine and active trading in them. These acts, counsel submitted, constituted an artifice or device intended to manipulate the market and create a false or misleading appearance of active trading, contrary to the provisions of the ISA. DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

The IST found the Appellant liable for market manipulation and granted the Respondent’s reliefs. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the IST and held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the issues raised for determination was: Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the jurisdiction of the Investment and Securities Tribunal (1ST) to hear and determine the action filed by the Respondent against the Appellant. ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the IST lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action because, notwithstanding the allegations of market manipulation, the substance of the dispute concerned the internal affairs and corporate governance of the Bank. Counsel contended that the allegations related principally to the manner in which the Appellant obtained and utilised the foreign loans; the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees; the purchase of the Appellant’s shares; the waiver of charges on the transactions; the duties and obligations of its directors and officers; and decisions purportedly taken by its Board. According to counsel, these matters were governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Counsel further argued that the reliefs sought by the Respondent could not be divorced from the underlying corporate transactions involving the Appellant, including the acquisition of its own shares, the alleged breach of the Bank’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, the fiduciary duties of its directors, and compliance with Central Bank regulations governing charges on banking transactions. Counsel finally submitted that the dispute was essentially one of company law and banking operations, rather than a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the ISA. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the lower court was correct in affirming the IST’s jurisdiction because the action was founded squarely on alleged violations of the Investments and Securities Act and the SEC Rules. Counsel submitted that the gravamen of the action was market manipulation and the protection of the integrity of the capital market, rather than the internal management of the Appellant. Counsel further submitted that the ISA specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction on the IST over disputes arising from the operation and application of the Act, and that the fact that the alleged scheme involved the acquisition of shares in the Appellant did not convert the dispute into one of corporate governance or take it outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction. Counsel maintained that the Appellant had procured foreign loans ostensibly for money-market operations but subsequently caused the funds to be transferred through Union Trustees and used to acquire a good unit of the Appellant’s shares through Falcon Securities Ltd. Counsel maintained that the transactions were structured through the Appellant’s subsidiary and other entities to conceal the Appellant’s beneficial interest in the shares and create the appearance of genuine and active trading in them. These acts, counsel submitted, constituted an artifice or device intended to manipulate the market and create a false or misleading appearance of active trading, contrary to the provisions of the ISA. DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

ARGUMENTS Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the IST lacked jurisdiction to entertain the action because, notwithstanding the allegations of market manipulation, the substance of the dispute concerned the internal affairs and corporate governance of the Bank. Counsel contended that the allegations related principally to the manner in which the Appellant obtained and utilised the foreign loans; the transfer of the loan proceeds to Union Trustees; the purchase of the Appellant’s shares; the waiver of charges on the transactions; the duties and obligations of its directors and officers; and decisions purportedly taken by its Board. According to counsel, these matters were governed by the Companies and Allied Matters Act and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Counsel further argued that the reliefs sought by the Respondent could not be divorced from the underlying corporate transactions involving the Appellant, including the acquisition of its own shares, the alleged breach of the Bank’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, the fiduciary duties of its directors, and compliance with Central Bank regulations governing charges on banking transactions. Counsel finally submitted that the dispute was essentially one of company law and banking operations, rather than a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the ISA. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the lower court was correct in affirming the IST’s jurisdiction because the action was founded squarely on alleged violations of the Investments and Securities Act and the SEC Rules. Counsel submitted that the gravamen of the action was market manipulation and the protection of the integrity of the capital market, rather than the internal management of the Appellant. Counsel further submitted that the ISA specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction on the IST over disputes arising from the operation and application of the Act, and that the fact that the alleged scheme involved the acquisition of shares in the Appellant did not convert the dispute into one of corporate governance or take it outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction. Counsel maintained that the Appellant had procured foreign loans ostensibly for money-market operations but subsequently caused the funds to be transferred through Union Trustees and used to acquire a good unit of the Appellant’s shares through Falcon Securities Ltd. Counsel maintained that the transactions were structured through the Appellant’s subsidiary and other entities to conceal the Appellant’s beneficial interest in the shares and create the appearance of genuine and active trading in them. These acts, counsel submitted, constituted an artifice or device intended to manipulate the market and create a false or misleading appearance of active trading, contrary to the provisions of the ISA. DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

Counsel further argued that the reliefs sought by the Respondent could not be divorced from the underlying corporate transactions involving the Appellant, including the acquisition of its own shares, the alleged breach of the Bank’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, the fiduciary duties of its directors, and compliance with Central Bank regulations governing charges on banking transactions. Counsel finally submitted that the dispute was essentially one of company law and banking operations, rather than a dispute falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the ISA. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the lower court was correct in affirming the IST’s jurisdiction because the action was founded squarely on alleged violations of the Investments and Securities Act and the SEC Rules. Counsel submitted that the gravamen of the action was market manipulation and the protection of the integrity of the capital market, rather than the internal management of the Appellant. Counsel further submitted that the ISA specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction on the IST over disputes arising from the operation and application of the Act, and that the fact that the alleged scheme involved the acquisition of shares in the Appellant did not convert the dispute into one of corporate governance or take it outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction. Counsel maintained that the Appellant had procured foreign loans ostensibly for money-market operations but subsequently caused the funds to be transferred through Union Trustees and used to acquire a good unit of the Appellant’s shares through Falcon Securities Ltd. Counsel maintained that the transactions were structured through the Appellant’s subsidiary and other entities to conceal the Appellant’s beneficial interest in the shares and create the appearance of genuine and active trading in them. These acts, counsel submitted, constituted an artifice or device intended to manipulate the market and create a false or misleading appearance of active trading, contrary to the provisions of the ISA. DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

In response, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the lower court was correct in affirming the IST’s jurisdiction because the action was founded squarely on alleged violations of the Investments and Securities Act and the SEC Rules. Counsel submitted that the gravamen of the action was market manipulation and the protection of the integrity of the capital market, rather than the internal management of the Appellant. Counsel further submitted that the ISA specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction on the IST over disputes arising from the operation and application of the Act, and that the fact that the alleged scheme involved the acquisition of shares in the Appellant did not convert the dispute into one of corporate governance or take it outside the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction. Counsel maintained that the Appellant had procured foreign loans ostensibly for money-market operations but subsequently caused the funds to be transferred through Union Trustees and used to acquire a good unit of the Appellant’s shares through Falcon Securities Ltd. Counsel maintained that the transactions were structured through the Appellant’s subsidiary and other entities to conceal the Appellant’s beneficial interest in the shares and create the appearance of genuine and active trading in them. These acts, counsel submitted, constituted an artifice or device intended to manipulate the market and create a false or misleading appearance of active trading, contrary to the provisions of the ISA. DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

Counsel maintained that the Appellant had procured foreign loans ostensibly for money-market operations but subsequently caused the funds to be transferred through Union Trustees and used to acquire a good unit of the Appellant’s shares through Falcon Securities Ltd. Counsel maintained that the transactions were structured through the Appellant’s subsidiary and other entities to conceal the Appellant’s beneficial interest in the shares and create the appearance of genuine and active trading in them. These acts, counsel submitted, constituted an artifice or device intended to manipulate the market and create a false or misleading appearance of active trading, contrary to the provisions of the ISA. DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

DECISION OF THE COURT In resolving the issue, the Supreme Court held that: The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

The Investments and Securities Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving decisions or determinations of SEC arising from the securities and capital market operations and the application of the ISA. The Court held that the IST is a specialised tribunal vested with authority to hear and determine specific disputes within the capital market, including disputes concerning decisions made by the SEC in applying the provisions of the law; disputes between capital market operators and their clients; disputes involving investors and securities exchanges; and disputes arising from the management and operation of collective investment schemes. The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

The Supreme Court explained that, by providing a specific and specialised forum for resolving capital-market disputes, the IST protects investors’ rights and promotes a safer investment environment. The new ISA also enhances the SEC’s powers to act against fraudulent schemes, including the power to obtain court or tribunal orders for the freezing and forfeiture of assets. In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

In the instant case, the Court held that the Respondent’s claims before the trial court fell squarely within the Respondent’s statutory mandate and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Investments and Securities Tribunal. The Court further awarded costs of ₦2 million in favour of the Respondent. Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

Issue resolved in favour of the Respondent. C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

C. I. Umeche, with T. Jimoh, for the Appellant. Olujoke Aliu, with O. H. Ogundiran and Elizebeth Tijani, for the Respondent. This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share

This summary is fully reported at (2026) 8 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co. See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company. Related News Beyond Talent: Building the legal infrastructure for Nigeria’s art market NDIC shifts from claims payer to risk minimiser to prevent bank failures Berger Paints chairman says innovation must deliver new solutions, not just new products Share