STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

NATURE OF JURISDICTION OF COURTS

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Jurisdiction is to a Court what a door is to a house. The question of a Courts jurisdiction is called a threshold issue because it is at the threshold of the temple of justice. Jurisdiction is a radical and fundamental question of competence, for if the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceedings are and remain a nullity, however well conducted and brilliantly decided they might have been. A defect in competence is not intrinsic but rather extrinsic to adjudication. Oloba v. Akereja (1988)3 NWLR (Pt.84)508; Oloriode v. Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR 390; Ezomo v. Oyakhire (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 2) 105; Petrojessica Ent. Ltd. v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 675; Barclays Bank v. C.B.N. (1976) 6 SC 175; African Newspapers (Nig.) Ltd. v. F.R.N. (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1006) 608; A.-G., Anambra State V. A.-G., Fed. (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 302) 692; Saleh v. Monguno (2003) 1 NWLR (Pt. 801) 221. (The underlining is supplied by us for emphasis). Under the Nigerian legal system, Courts are creations or creatures of statutes or legislations such as the grundnorm itself, that is, the Constitution or Decrees or Acts or Laws or Edicts. Hence, it is the legislations themselves that cloak the Courts with powers or adjudicatory jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Constitution, Decrees, Acts, Laws and Edicts do not grant jurisdiction to a Court, the Court itself and or parties cannot by agreement endow the Court with jurisdiction. For once there is a defect in the competence of a Court to adjudicate upon an action, the proceedings in the action no matter how otherwise so well, properly and brilliantly conducted would amount to a nullity and an exercise in futility. Therefore, since Courts are creatures of statutes, their jurisdiction is confined, limited, restricted and circumscribed by the statutes creating them. Moreover, a Court must study the statute which creates it and must not misconstrue same to exercise jurisdiction not donated to it thereby. See also the cases of: (1) Ndaeyo v. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 SC p. 11; (2) National Bank of Nigeria v. Shoyoye (1977) 5 SC p. 181 and (3) A.-G., Fed. v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) p. 187.

— O.F. Omoleye JCA. Amaechi V. The Governor of Rivers State & Ors. (CA/PH/342/2015, 8 May 2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction

SHIFT FROM THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT JURISDICTION MUST BE HEARD FIRST

A Court is naked and exposed without jurisdiction. It is therefore the general rule to determine jurisdiction first whilst it is an exceptional rule to take steps in defending of protecting the authority of the court first before jurisdiction. However, in recent times, there appears to be a move or a shift by the courts away from the general principle of law which state that the issue of jurisdiction must be determined first before taking any other step in the proceedings. This is due to some unscrupulous litigants who perch on the general principle of objection of jurisdiction to intentionally delay litigation and prosecutions of cases to the annoyance of their adversaries and in most cases resulting to abuse of court processes. In such cases the litigants are bent to drag the issue of jurisdiction up to the Apex Court while the substantive matter is stayed in the trial court thereby resulting in delay of cases. In order to honour the time adage of “justice delayed is just denied,” some courts have employed the practice of hearing preliminary objections on jurisdiction along with the substantive matter but decide the issue of jurisdiction first in the judgment. Some courts also in the spirit of quick dispensation of justice, have also made Rules of Court which have provided for the consolidation of preliminary objection with any other court process where the other process is an originating summons where the facts are not in dispute. See Order 29 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules, 2009; Inakoju vs. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423, First Inland Bank Plc. vs. Alliance International Nigeria Limited delivered on 23/1/2013 in CA/E/96/2009.

– T. Akomolafe-Wilson, JCA. Onnoghen v. FRN (2019) – CA/A/44C/2019

Was this dictum helpful?

JURISDICTION OF COURT – JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME

I have found that ground (1) is premised on the jurisdiction of the lower court. It is the law that even where a court of law does not pronounce whether it has jurisdiction to try a matter or not, once the establishing law or other statutes or the subject matter or party before the court has divested that court of jurisdiction, then jurisdiction does not reside in the court. The ground is properly taken by the appellant in this appeal as issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any level of the proceedings of a court even at appeal levels. See: Nigeria Eng. Works Ltd. v. Denap Ltd. (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.746) 726.

— T. Muhammad, JSC. VAB Petroleum v. Momah (2013) – SC.99/2004

Was this dictum helpful?

FEDERAL HIGH COURT APPELLATE JURISDICTION – SECTION 27 FHC ACT

The Federal High Court, like a High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory has appellate jurisdiction conferred by Section 27 of the Federal High court Act. It can hear and determine appears from: 1) the decisions of Appeal Commissioners established under the Companies Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Personal Income Tax Act, 1968 in so far an applicable as Federal Laws; 2) decisions of the Board of Customs and Excise established under Customs and Excise Management Act, 1958 3) decisions of Magistrates Courts in respect of civil or criminal cases or matters transferred to such courts pursuant to the Federal High Court Act; 4) decisions of any other body established by or under any other Federal enactment or law in respect of matters concerning which jurisdiction is conferred upon that court by the Act.

— I.T. Muhammad, JSC. Adetona & Ors. v Igele (2011) – SC.237/2005

Was this dictum helpful?

PROCEEDING WILL BE REGARDED AS A NULLITY – JURISDICTION

Generally, proceedings before the Court of law can be regarded as a nullity where:- (a) The Court is not properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench. (b) The subject-matter of the action is not within the jurisdiction of the Court. (c) The case before the Court is not initiated by due process of law, or that there is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU V NKEMDILIM, (1962)1 ALL N.L.R 587. — M.L. Shuaibu, JCA. Ekpo v GTB (2018) – CA/C/324/2013

Was this dictum helpful?

JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANYTIME – IT SHOULD BE RAISED EARLIER

The issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and the law is trite that it can be raised by a party at any stage of courts’ proceedings, even at the level of the Supreme Ccourt. See Francis Durwode v. State 2000 15 NWLR part 691 page 467, Otukpo v. John 2000 8 NWLR part 669 page 507. It is however ideal that it be raised at the earliest stage of proceedings to avoid unnecessary waste of time, which the defendant has done in the instant case.

— A.M. Mukhtar, JSC. Adetona & Ors. v Igele (2011) – SC.237/2005

Was this dictum helpful?

RULES OF COURT DO NOT VEST JURISDICTION IN A COURT OF LAW

There is another aspect of the matter and it is the citation of Order 43 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Abia State. While I agree that they are the current Rules, can Rules of Court vest jurisdiction in a court of law? Rules of court do not possess any legal capacity to vest jurisdiction in a court. That is never their function. The function belongs to the Constitution and statutes; not rules of court. I will therefore not examine the content of Order 43 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Abia State.

— Niki Tobi, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.