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!

COURT JURISDICTION IN CUSTOMARY RIGHT OF OCCUPANCY GRANTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Olaleye-Ote & Anor v. Babalola (2012) LPELR-9275(SC), where it was stated that, “The Land Use Act vested jurisdiction in proceedings relating to Customary Right of Occupancy granted by a Local Government on: ‘An Area Court or Customary Court or other Court of equivalent jurisdiction in a State without classification. The State Law imposed classification with jurisdiction of each grade of Court based on the value or annual rental value of the land, this modifying the jurisdiction conferred by the Federal Law.’ In my humble view, the Federal Legislature effectively covered the field in relation to the jurisdiction of the relevant Courts over proceedings in matters of customary right of occupancy granted by a Local Government. The State Law conferring jurisdiction according to Grade and value of the land in litigation is in conflict with S.41 of the Land Use Act, a Federal legislation.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction, land

BEFORE A COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION

Before a court can exercise jurisdiction respect of any matter, it must:- (a) be properly constituted as regards numbers and qualification of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or the others. (b) the subject-matter of the case is within the jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction and (c) The case comes by clue process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.

— O.O. Adekeye, JSC. Mini Lodge v. Ngei (2009) – SC.231/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF THAT IS CONSIDERED TO EXAMINE JURISDICTION

To put it in different words, the jurisdiction of a Court is determined by the plaintiffs claim as disclosed in the endorsement on the writ of summons cum statement of claim or as in the present case, originating summons cum its supporting affidavit and not the averments contained in the statement of defence or counter affidavit to the originating summons. That is to say, it is the claim of the plaintiff before the Court that has to be examined in ascertaining whether or not it falls within the jurisdiction conferred on the Court by the Constitution or Statute establishing the Court and prescribing its jurisdiction.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

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?

TO DETERMINE COURT’S JURISDICTION

Adekanola v. A.P.D. Co. Ltd. (2026) 9 NWLR (Pt. 2048) 309 at 359, A–C per Tsammani JSC:

‘Now, to determine whether the court has jurisdiction in a matter, the court will peruse the plaintiff’s claims as endorsed in the originating process, such as the writ of summons and the statement of claim. The defendant’s answer to the claims pleaded in the statement of defence is not a relevant factor in the determination of the jurisdiction of the court. Jurisdiction of a court is determined solely by the plaintiff’s claim.’

Was this dictum helpful?

TORT OF CONVERSION IS ACTIONABLE AT THE HIGH COURT

In TRADE BANK PLC v. BENILUX LIMITED (2003), 9 NWLR (pt.825) 416, this court in considering the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High court in matters provided under the section 230 (1) (d) of the constitution (suspension and Modification) Decree No.107 of 1993, held that although there is no relationship of customer and banker between the respondent and the appellant which fact would ordinarily have conferred jurisdiction on the High court, the respondent’s case therein, was simply a tort of conversion and therefore actionable in the High Court of a State.
(Relied on in Adetona & Ors. v Igele (2011) – SC.237/2005)

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?

No more related dictum to show.