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

APPELLATE COURT AND TRIAL COURT HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION ON EVALUATION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Suleiman v. State (2026) 11 NWLR (Pt. 2052) 537 at 568—569, G—H per Ogbuinya JSC:

‘Let me place on record, perforce, that the law, in order to banish injustice from its undeserved throne in the temple of justice, donates concurrent jurisdiction to this court and the lower courts on evaluation of documentary evidence. See Ezeuko v. State (2016) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1509) 529; FRN v. Sanni (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1433) 299; Atoyebi v. FRN (2018) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1612) 350; Bako v. IGP (2025) 16 NWLR (Pt. 2012) 591. I am, therefore, showered with right to tap from the vineyard of this co-extensive jurisdiction, bequeathed to this court by law, vis-à-vis the interpretation of appellant’s confessional statement, exhibit 2(b), without any iota of insult to the law.’

Was this dictum helpful?

JURISDICTION OF COURT CANNOT BE GIVEN BY RULES OF COURT

The law is settled that the jurisdiction of a Court of record, in its broad and substantive sense, cannot be conferred by the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court are only made, pursuant to the powers conferred on the heads of Courts by the Constitution to make Rules, to regulate practice and procedure in their respective Courts. The Rules they make are only to regulate the practice and procedure in their respective Courts. The Rules do not confer jurisdiction on the Court to entertain causes or matters. Rather, the jurisdiction of Courts in Nigeria is either conferred or vested by the Constitution or the enabling statute establishing the Court.

– E. Eko JSC. Mailantarki v. Tongo (2017) – SC.792/2015

Was this dictum helpful?

IT IS PARAMOUNT TO DECIDE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION FIRST

The issue of jurisdiction is the bedrock of adjudication by a Court of law and as such, it is basically considered expedient to resolve same before proceeding to consider the main issues presented to the Court for adjudication on the merit. It goes without saying that the determination of a suit by a Court is null and void if done without jurisdiction notwithstanding how well or proper the proceeding was conducted. The jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a matter is therefore fundamental to the extent that if a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, the proceedings is a nullity ab initio. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; A.G. Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 6 SC (Pt. II) page 1; A.G. Rivers State v. A.G. Akwa Ibom State (2011) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31; Ajao v. Alao (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 802; Galadima v. Tambai (2000) 6 SCNJ 190.

— S.C. Oseji, JCA. Access Bank v Edo State BIR (2018) – CA/B/333/2015

Was this dictum helpful?

ALLEGATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION IS ENOUGH TO TRIGGER THIS COURT JURISDICTION

In the case of His Excellency Vice-President Alhaji Samuel Sam-Sumana v. Republic of Sierra Leone.-SUIT NO: ECW/CCJ/APP/38/16 and JUD NO: ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/17 (At page 14 of the judgment); the court held that: “Indeed Allegations of violations of Human Rights by an Applicant is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. This is distinct from the issues of the veracity of the allegation.”

Was this dictum helpful?

FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT CLAIM HINGED ON SUBJECT MATTER OUTSIDE FHC JURISDICTION, THE FHC LACKS JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court in ADETONA V. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (2011) 7 NWLR (PT. 1247) PG 542 at page 543 held: “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. However it should 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.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the most explicit terms interpreted Section 46(2) of the Constitution at P.564, para. E; F, thus: “On Jurisdiction of the Federal and State High Court over action for enforcement of fundamental rights – A High Court of a State lacks Jurisdiction to entertain matters on Fundamental Rights, although brought pursuant to Section 46(2) of the Constitution, where the alleged breach arose from a transaction or subject matter which falls within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as provided by Section 251 of the Constitution.”

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT OF LAW SHOULD EXERCISE JURISDICTION WHERE

It is well settled, that a Court of law or tribunal is deemed competent to entertain and determine a matter or action before it if: (a) It is properly constituted in regard to numbers and qualification of the member thereof, and no member is disqualified for any reason whatsoever; (b) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature therein preventing the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and (c) The case is initiated by due process of law, and upon satisfying any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Mark v. Eke (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 529) 501; SLB Consotium Ltd v. NNPC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 317, (2011) 5 SCM 187.

– I.M.M. Saulawa JSC. Ihim v. Maduagwu (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.