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!

JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED EARLIEST

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

It is settled law that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal. Jurisdiction is regarded as a threshold issue and a life line for continuing any proceedings, that objection to jurisdiction ought to be taken at the earliest opportunity provided there are sufficient materials before the court to consider it and a decision reached on it before any other step in the proceedings is taken because if there is no jurisdiction the entire proceedings are a nullity no matter how well conducted. See Western Steel Works Ltd. v. Iron and Steel Workers Union (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.30) 617; Barclays Bank of Nigeria v. C.B.N. (1976) 6 SC 175; Aloha v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508; Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350: Jeric (Nig.) Ltd. v. U. B.N. Plc. (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 447 and NDIC v. C.B.N. (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272. It is always in the interest of justice to raise the issue of jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity so as to save time and costs and to avoid a trial in nullity. See Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd. v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 675, at 693 where Belgore, JSC, said: “It is desirable that preliminary objection be raised early on issue of jurisdiction, but once it is apparent to any party that the court may not have jurisdiction it can be raised even viva-voce as in this case. It is always in the interest of justice to raise issue of jurisdiction so as to save time and costs and to avoid a trial in nullity.” See also Enweremadu v. Ohajuruka (supra) at 478 when Ikongbeh, JCA held inter alia: “Once the jurisdiction of court is called into question, it becomes powerless to do anything in a cause or matter before it other than to inquire into the existence or lack of jurisdiction to entertain the cause or matter, it cannot do anything in furtherance of the cause or matter.”

— Abba Aji, J.C.A. Secondi Bogban & Ors. V. Motor Diwhre & Ors. (CA/B/88/2003, 20 MAY 2005)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction

WHENEVER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT IS CALLED INTO QUESTION

Adekanola v. A.P.D. Co. Ltd. (2026) 9 NWLR (Pt. 2048) 309 at 358, A–D per Tsammani JSC:

‘That being so, whenever the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is called into question, the court must pay attention and focus on the subject matter of the suit. It is not sufficient to aver that the issue affects the Federal Government or its Agency. Thus, where the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim cannot be fitted into any of the items enumerated in section 251 (a)-(s) the Federal High Court is not the forum for the ventilation of such dispute or action. See Olutola v. Unilorin (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 416 at 462’

Was this dictum helpful?

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BREACHED, NOT FALLING WITHIN FHC JURISDICTION, WILL BE INSTITUTED AT THE STATE HIGH COURT

Although, unlike the 1979 Constitution, Section 318(1) of the present Constitution does not define “High Court”, there is no doubt that the term carries the same meaning as given by Section 277(1) of the 1979 Constitution to mean Federal High Court or the High Court of a State. Therefore, it is my understanding that where a person’s fundamental right is breached, being breached or about to be breached, that person may apply under section 46(1) to the Judicial division of the Federal High Court in the State or the High Court of the State or that of the Federal Capital Territory in which the breach occurred or is occurring or about to occur. This is irrespective of whether the right involved comes within the legislative competence of the Federation or the State or the Federal Capital Territory, See the case of Minister of Internal Affairs v. Shugaba (1982) 3 NCLR 915. It has to however be noted that the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Federal High Court is where the fundamental right threatened or breached falls within the enumerated matters on which that court has jurisdiction. Thus, fundamental rights arising from matters outside its jurisdiction cannot be enforced by the Federal High Court. See: Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 3 NSCC 225. Equally, a High Court of a State shall lack jurisdiction to entertain matters of fundamental rights, although brought pursuant to section 46(2) of the Constitution where the alleged breach of such matters arose from a transaction or subject matter which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as provided by Section 251 of the Constitution.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

JUDGE SHOULD NOT MAKE PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE CASE AFTER STRIKING OUT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

It is my judgment that the Judge was wrong in dismissing the suit rather than striking it out when he held that he had no jurisdiction. The court was not just wrong, I dare say that the court abdicated a constitutional obligation or duty. In any case, the law is that even where a court finds that it had no jurisdiction he has no business making any other order or proceeding further other than to do his only duty, which is to strike out the matter or case: Obi v. I.N.E.C. (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 378) 1116, (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1046) 565. Also the case of John Egbele v. The Post Master General (unreported decision of this court in CA/L/585/05 delivered on 10 November 2010) wherein this court, per Mukhtar JCA in his lead judgment said at page 10 thus: “The court below having rightly held that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter, ought to have simply struck out the matter as it lacked the competence to decide any other issue. The further pronouncement by the court that the suit was statute-barred was null and void and same is hereby struck out” In Okotie-Eboh v. Manager (2005) 123 LRCN 256, (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 241) 277, the Supreme Court also made it clear, per Edozie JSC at page 288, paragraph K of the report that the superfluous pronouncement made after a finding that the court had no jurisdiction was academic as courts of law are not academic institutions. I must say that it is for this same reason that I had in the decision of this court in Egbele v. The Post Master General said in my contribution as follows: “it is in the same reasoning that I hold that challenge raised in ground No. 2 of the appeal – bordering as it were on the limitation of action, has no merit as the High Court of a State including that of Lagos State has no jurisdiction to proceed to pronounce on the incompetence of the suit for being statute-barred after it had found … That it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.”

— Danjuma, JCA. Tony Anthony Nig. Ltd & Ors. v. NDIC (CA/L/630/2009 • 25 January 2011)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE A PARTY IS A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THE FHC THAT HAS JURISDICTION

In the case of INEGBEDION V. SELO-OJEMEN & ANOR. (2013) LPELR – 19769 (SC); the Apex Court held: “The effect of Paragraphs (p), (q) and (r) of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution is to vest exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court over all civil causes and matters in which the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party. See NEPA V. EDEGBERO (2002) 103 LRCN 2280 at 2281 2282. The provision to Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution does not in any way detract from the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by virtue of Section 251 (1) (p), (q) and (r). Consequently the proviso cannot apply.” Per Stanley Shenko Alagoa, J.S.C. (Pp 13 -14 para F – B).

Furthermore the Supreme Court went on to state that: “The law is unequivocally stated by the 1999 Constitution [as amended] in Section 251 (1) (p), (q), (r) and by this Court that where in a matter, one of the parties is the Federal Government or any of its Agencies, it is only the Federal High Court that has exclusive jurisdiction. A State High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a matter. See: NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY V. EDEGBERO (2002) 18 NWLR (part 789) 79.” Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, J.S.C (p. 15, paras A – B).

Was this dictum helpful?

IT IS ONLY SIGNATORIES TO THE ECOWAS TREATY WHO CAN BE SUED BEFORE THE ECOWAS COURT

✓ In the case of JOHNNY KING & 10 Ors V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 9 Ors ECW/CCJ/RUL/06/19, the Court held that: “The Court has looked at the laws regarding its jurisprudence as well as precedents in this Court, and it is so clear that, it is only member states of ECOWAS who are signatories to the treaties can be brought before this Court for human rights violations and this Court has maintained that position in all its decisions.”
✓ In SERAP V. THE PRESIDENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & Ors ECW/CCJ/RUL/07/10, The Court confirms that: “In the context and legal framework of ECOWAS, the court stands by its current understanding that only member States and Community Institutions can be sued before it for alleged violation of human right as laid down in Peter David v. Ambassador Ralph Uwechue delivered on 11 th day of June 2010”.

Was this dictum helpful?

PARTIES TO A CASE DETERMINE THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT

However, what the learned senior Counsel failed to realize is the fact that the presence of the 2nd Appellant, the National Judicial Council and the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation as parties in the case, had pulled in a feature in the case which brought it out of the jurisdiction of the High Court taking into consideration the decision of this Court in Madukolu v. Nkemdelim (supra) earlier quoted in this judgment.

– Mahmud, JSC. Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G Federation (2012)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.