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 LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE THERE ARE NO PROPER PARTIES

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

It is trite law that for a court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified. Before an action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be the proper parties to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach. The question of proper parties is a very important issue which would affect the jurisdiction of the court as it goes to the foundation of the suit in limine. Where proper parties are not before the court then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit.

– Adekeye, J.S.C. Goodwill v. Witt (2011) – SC. 266/2005

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction

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?

FEDERAL HIGH COURT APPELLATE JURISDICTION – SECTION 27 FHC ACT

The Federal High Court, like a High Court of a State or of the Federal Capital Territory has appellate jurisdiction conferred by Section 27 of the Federal High court Act. It can hear and determine appears from: 1) the decisions of Appeal Commissioners established under the Companies Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Personal Income Tax Act, 1968 in so far an applicable as Federal Laws; 2) decisions of the Board of Customs and Excise established under Customs and Excise Management Act, 1958 3) decisions of Magistrates Courts in respect of civil or criminal cases or matters transferred to such courts pursuant to the Federal High Court Act; 4) decisions of any other body established by or under any other Federal enactment or law in respect of matters concerning which jurisdiction is conferred upon that court by the Act.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

ILLEGALITY OF A CONTRACT IMPACTS THE JURISDICTION OF A COURT

Illegality of a contract or transaction, whenever it is raised as a defence to a claim founded on the said transaction, impacts on the jurisdiction of the court. When the contract on which the plaintiff sues is ex facie illegal, the courts will decline to enforce it for the courts exercise their jurisdiction only to administer the law of the land. They do not exercise their jurisdiction to help the Plaintiff break the law. See GEORGE & ORS v. DOMINION FLOUR MILLS LTD (1963) 1 ALL NLR 71; IBRAHIM v. OSIM (1988) NWLR 257; BARCLAYS BANK D.O.C. v, MEMUNATU HASSAN (1961) ALL NLR 836.

— E. Eko, JSC. CITEC v. Edicomisa (2017) – SC. 163 2006

Was this dictum helpful?

JURISDICTION IS A THRESHOLD MATTER

Jurisdiction is a threshold matter. Once raised all proceedings abate until it is resolved. Proceedings conducted without jurisdiction amount to a nullity. There is nothing as useless as conducting a trial flawlessly only to find out that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. That explains why the issue of jurisdiction can be taken at any stage of the proceedings, at trial, on appeal and even in the Supreme Court for the first time.

– Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Olabomi v. Oyewinle (2013) – SC.345/2012

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?

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?

No more related dictum to show.