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!

EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION IS ON FHC WHERE ANY OF ITS AGENCIES IS A PARTY

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

ADEGBITE & ANOR. v AMOSU (2016) LPELR 40655 (SC); wherein it was held that: “The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) has conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in a matter in which the Federal Government or any of its agencies is involved. (Section 251(1) (p), (q), (r) and (s).” Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, J.S.C (p. 16).

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction

EXCEPTION TO DETERMINING JURISDICTION BY WRIT & STATEMENT OF CLAIM

The point has to be cleared without delay that the law though well settled is that the writ of summons and statement of claim are the materials on which the issue of competence and jurisdiction of Court is raised, however it is not a principle cast in stone or regarded as immutable as circumstances could arise where, when an objection is made by means of a motion on notice, facts deposed to in affidavit in support as well as the counter affidavits and attached exhibits are also utilised to resolve the question, in the same vein could come up the use of evidence already adduced in the resolution of the question of jurisdiction as was the case in the instant matter which came up at the close of evidence and in the final addresses of counsel. Therefore the Court below erred in holding that the trial High Court was correct to determine the objection by reference solely on the writ of summons and statement of claim even though the oral and documentary evidence in proof of the relevant paragraphs of the statement of claim were staring it in the face of the Court. Indeed the Court below ought not to have closed its eyes to the record and the evidence already before it. See Okoroma v Uba (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt.587) 359; Onuorah v KRPC Ltd (2005) 6 NWLR (Pt.921) 393; NDIC v CBN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.766) 272; I.K. Martins (Nig.) Ltd v UPL (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.217) 322; Agbareh v Mimra (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt.1071) 378; Osafile v Odi NO.1 (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.137) 130; Nigergate Ltd v Niger State Government (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1103) 111 (CA).

— Tanko Muhammad, JSC. Berger v Toki Rainbow (2019) – SC.332/2009

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT EXERCISES JURISDICTION ONLY OVER THOSE WHO ARE WITHIN ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

Courts exercise jurisdiction over persons who are within its territorial jurisdiction: Nwabueze vs. Obi-Okoye (1988) 10-11 SCNJ 60 at 73; Onyema vs. Oputa (1987) 18 NSCC (Pt. 2) 900; Ndaeyo vs. Ogunnaya (1977) 1 SC 11. Since the respondent was fully aware that before the issuance of the writ the appellant’s abode or residence for the past one year was no longer at No.189, Off R.B. Dikko Road, Asokoro, Abuja within jurisdiction, substituted service of the processes should not have been ordered by the learned trial Judge.

— J.T. Tur, JCA. Abdulkardir Abacha v Kurastic [2014] – CA/A/406/2010

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?

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT – GENERAL NATURE OF JURISDICTION

It is elementary to state that the jurisdiction of a court is the authority which a court possesses to decide matters brought before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision; In the case of Ogunmokun v Milad, Osun State (1999) 3 NWLR (pt. 594) 261 at 265, this court stated that – “Jurisdiction of the court is the basis, foundation and life wire of access to court in adjudication under Nigerian Civil Process. As courts are set up under the Constitution, Decrees, Acts, Laws and Edicts, they cloak the courts with the powers and jurisdiction of 28 adjudication. If the Constitution, Decrees, Acts, Laws and Edicts do not grant jurisdiction to a court or tribunal, the court and the parties cannot by agreement endow it with jurisdiction as no matter how well intentioned and properly conducted the proceedings, once it is incompetent, it is a nullity and an exercise in futility.” The jurisdiction of a court has further been defined as very fundamental and priceless commodity in the judicial process. That it is the fulcrum, centre pin or the main pillar upon which the validity of any decision of any court stands and around which other issues rotate. Thus, it cannot be assumed or implied, it cannot also be conferred by a party or by consent or acquiescence of parties. See SPDC Nig. Ltd. v Isaiah (2001) 5 SC (pt. 11)1, Attorney General of the Federation v Sode (1990) 1 NWLR (pt. 126) 500 at 541.

— I. Okoro JSC. Atiku, PDP v. INEC, Tinubu, APC (SC/CV/935/2023, 26th day of October, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

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?

FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER AVIATION MATTERS

The Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Aviation related causes of action. See Section 251 (1) K of the Constitution; and a plaintiff, claimant would have a valid claim if his suit is commenced within two years from the date of arrival at his destination or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived or from the date the flight ended. See Article 29 of both Legislations.

– Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Cameroon v. Otutuizu (2011) – SC.217/2004

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.