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!

WHERE SUBJECT MATTER OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT APPLICATION IS WITHIN FHC, STATE HIGH COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Whereas both the State and Federal High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction in the determination of Fundamental Right cases, the phrase “subject to the provision of the Constitution” as embodied under Section 46 (2) demarcated the respective Jurisdictions of the State and Federal High Courts. In essence, a State High Court cannot for instance rightly and validly determine allegations of breach of Fundamental Rights emanating from acts of Terrorism or Treason and Treasonable felonies which fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Likewise, a Federal High Court cannot except where circumstances permit, validly determine alleged violation of human rights that arise from torts, rape or armed robbery etc. as the same ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the State High Courts.

— U. Onyemenam, JCA. Iheme v Chief of Defence Staff (2018) – CA/J/264/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction

ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN ONLY BE RAISED AT THE ARBITRATION PANEL

The law therefore is that although in the regular Courts, the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at all stages of the proceedings of a case; from the trial to the final appellate, where a statute prescribed the stage at which the issue is to be raised in the course of the proceedings of a case, the issue cannot be validly and properly raised at any other stage other than the one stipulated in the statute. The general principle applies only where there was no statutory provision as to the particular or specific stage of the proceedings of a case at which the issue of jurisdiction is to be raised by a party.

– Garba, JCA. Dunlop v. Gaslink (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS DETERMINED BY CAUSE OF ACTION

The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the cause of action of the plaintiff as endorsed on the writ of summons or from both the writ of summons and the statement of claim. Where however, an action is commenced by Originating summons then it is the reliefs sought as well as the averments in the affidavit in support of the originating process that would be examined to discern if the court has jurisdiction. These would be relied on if the facts placed before the court as contained in the statement of claim or the affidavit in the case of originating summons are clear and unambiguous to enable it determine the issue. This is because it is the plaintiff who invokes the constitutional right for a determination of his right and accordingly the exercise of the judicial powers of the Constitution vested in the courts. See: A-G., Oyo State v. NLC (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 821) page 1; Akande & 2 Ors. v. Busari Alagbe & Anor, (2001) FWLR (Pt. 38) page 1352, (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.690) 353; A.-G., Federation v. Guardian Newspaper Ltd. & 5 Ors. (2001) FWLR (Pt. 32) page 93, (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) 187; Messrs N. V. Scheep & Anor. v. The MV’s Araz & Anor. (2000) FWLR (Pt 34) page 556, (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 622; NEPA v. Atukpor (2001) FWLR (Pt. 20) page 626, (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 693) 96; General Sani Abacha & 3 Ors. v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (2000) FWLR (Pt. 4) page 557, (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228; Okulate & 4 Ors. v. Awosanya & 2 Ors. (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 646) page 530-6.

— Aboki, JCA. Action Congress v INEC (2007) – CA/A/101/07

Was this dictum helpful?

WRIT & STATEMENT OF CLAIM MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED TO ASCERTAIN JURISDICTION

In their arguments on the sole issue, both learned counsel for the parties correctly stated the often-stated principle of law in determining whether or not a court has jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of a suit. That is that the writ of summons and the Statement of claim must be carefully examined. See OPITI v. OGBEIWI (1992) 4 NWLR (pt.234) 184 at 195; ADEYEMI v OPEYORI (1976) 9-10 SC.31 at 49. It is well settled that where there is no jurisdiction to hear and determine a cause or matter, everything done in such want of jurisdiction is a nullity. See MUSTAPHA v. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1987) NWLR (pt.58).

— S. Galadima JSC. Adetona & Ors. v Igele (2011) – SC.237/2005

Was this dictum helpful?

RECEIVER/MANAGER WHO IS LIABLE OF CONVERSION WILL BE TRIED IN HIGH COURT OF A STATE

The position of the law is admirably captured and enhanced in the case of 7UP BOTTLING CO. LTD. and ors. v ABIOLA and SONS LIMITED (2001)13 NWLR (pt.730) 469 where the acts and conduct complained of are that of a Receiver/Manager. It was similarly argued on behalf of the Appellants in that case that because it was a Receiver/Manager who sold the Respondent’s properties, it was a matter which bordered on the operation of the companies and Allied Matters Act and falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. This Court Per ONU JSC discountenanced this argument and held that since there was an extant injunction restraining the Receiver/Manager from selling the Respondent’s properties, the sale of those properties amounted to conversion which is an action in tort over which the Kwara State High Court has jurisdiction.
(Relied on in Adetona & Ors. v Igele (2011) – SC.237/2005)

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?

MERE ALLEGATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION SATISFIES RATIONE MATERIAE

✓ Para. 14: In Serap V. Federal Republic Of Nigeria & 4 ors, (2014) ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/14 (unreported), the Court held that the mere allegation that there has been a violation of human rights in the territory of a member State is sufficient prima facie to justify the jurisdiction of this Court on the dispute, surely without any prejudice to the substance and merits of the complaint which has to be determined only after the parties have been given the opportunity to present their case, with full guarantees of fair trial.

✓ Para 15: Similarly in El Hadji Aboubacar Vs. BCEAO & Rep. of Niger (2011) CCJELR (unreported) pg. 8, Para 25, the Court found that for an application to be admissible in matters of human rights, the mere citing of the facts connected with such description suffices to confer competence on it.

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.