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!

CONSIDERING EXECUTIVE ACTION VIS-A-VIS THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Adekanola v. A.P.D. Co. Ltd. (2026) 9 NWLR (Pt. 2048) 309 at 356, B–G per Tsammani JSC:

‘The term “executive action or decision” as used in section 251(1)(r) of the 1999 Constitution must be an action concerned with or relating to the effectuation of the plans or policies of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. Similarly, an administrative action must be directed at carrying out the policy of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. It must have a direct relationship with the management or administration of the agency concerned. See Oladipo v. Nigerian Custom Board (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt.1156) 563 … A careful analysis of the facts in support of the reliefs sought by the 1st respondent is that he was issued a Certificate of Occupancy No. 90/90/37 in respect of the leased property for a period of Fifty years. See paragraph 36 of the statement of claim. That the 2nd respondent colluded with the 3rd appellant to revoke 71% of the total land covered by the Certificate of Occupancy and allotted same to third parties. It is therefore my view that, the claim of the 1st respondent was for a declaration as to its title to the subject land in dispute covered by Certificate of Occupancy No. 90/90/37. So, if the claim is considered on the issue of the lease agreement, or the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy, the Federal High Court does not have the required jurisdiction to hear and determine to 1st respondent’s claims. In other words, the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim, the subject of which is land and in respect of which the claimant is challenging the revocation of a statutory Certificate of Occupancy.’

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction

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?

WHEN A COURT IS COMPETENT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER A SUIT

A court is said to be competent to exercise jurisdiction over a suit when the following are present: 1. It is properly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; 2. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; O’BAU ENGINEERING LTD V. ALMASOL (NIG.) LTD (2022) LPELR 57985 (SC); PETROLEUM (SPECIAL) TRUST FUND V. FIDELITY BANK & ORS (2021) LPELR 56625 (SC); ENEH V. NDIC & ORS (2018) LPELR 44902 (SC); JAMES V. INEC & ORS (2015) LPELR 24494 (SC).

— A. Jauro, JSC. PDP v INEC (2023) – SC/CV/501/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

SUBSTANTIVE VERSUS PROCEDURAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

In Adekanola v. A.P.D. Co. Ltd. (2026) 9 NWLR (Pt. 2048) 309 at 354–355, E–D per Tsammani JSC:

‘It should also be noted that, jurisdiction consists of procedural (adjectival) and substantive jurisdiction. Procedural (Adjectival) jurisdiction regulates the enforcement of substantive law. It comprises the rules by which a court hears or conducts civil or criminal proceedings. Substantive jurisdiction (or law) defines the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy. The substantive jurisdiction or law, determines the cause of action in a particular case. See Prince J.S. Atolagbe & Anor v. Alhaji Ahmadu Awuni& Ors (1997) LPELR-593 (SC), (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt. 522) 536; Central Bank of Nigeria v. Inalegwu Frankline Ochife & Ors (2025) LPELR-80220 (SC), (2025) 12 NWLR (Pt. 2000) 1 and Total Exploration & Production Nigeria Ltd v. Okwu (2024) LPELR-62623 (SC), (2024) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1967) 379. Thus, breach of substantive law or jurisdiction will have the effect of nullifying any judgment or order reached in the absence of such jurisdiction. In the case of Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited v. Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency & Ors (2002) LPELR-1887(SC), (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 1 this court held thus: “……. sometimes, the distinction between substance and procedure is blurred. It is generally accepted that matters (including facts which define the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy) are matters of substance defined by substantive law, whereas matters which are mere vehicles which assist the court or Tribunal in going into matters in controversy or litigated before it are matters of procedure regulated by procedural law. Facts which constitute the cause of action are matters of substance and should be pleaded, whereas facts which relate to how a party is to invoke the jurisdiction of the court for a remedy pursuant to his cause of action is a matter of procedure outside the realms of pleadings ……”

As stated earlier in the course of this judgment matters of substantive law or jurisdiction are donated either by the Constitution or Statute. In the instant case, we are confined to the substantive jurisdiction of the trial court, which is the Federal High Court of Nigeria. It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is defined by section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as altered).’

Was this dictum helpful?

INITIATING APPLICATION DETERMINES COURT’S JURISDICTION

In Bakary Sarre & 28 Ors vs. Senegal (2011) (unreported) Pg. 11, Para. 25, the Court held that its competence to adjudicate in a given case depends not only on its texts, but also on the substance of the Initiating Application. The Court accords every attention to the claims made by the Applicants, the pleas in law invoked, and in an instance where human right violation is alleged, the Court equally carefully considers how the parties present such allegations.

Was this dictum helpful?

NO JURISDICTION, COURT CANNOT DECIDE

It is a cardinal principle of law that jurisdiction is fundamental to the determination of a suit, as unless a court is competent, it cannot exercise jurisdiction over a suit to the extent of deciding on it.

– Mukhtar JSC. Goodwill v. Witt (2011) – SC. 266/2005

Was this dictum helpful?

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

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?

No more related dictum to show.