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!

FOR FEDERAL HIGH COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION, PARTY OR CLAIM MUST FALL WITHIN SECTION 251 CFRN

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

In Kakih v PDP (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt.1430) p.374, in support of N.E.P.A. v Edegbero supra. I said that: “The claim of the party and the reliefs must be within Section 251 (1) of the Constitution before the Federal High Court can have jurisdiction. Furthermore, where an agency of Federal Government is a party, the principal reliefs must be directed against the Federal Government or any of its agencies before a Federal High Court can have jurisdiction.”

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction

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?

JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED EARLIEST

It is settled law that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal. Jurisdiction is regarded as a threshold issue and a life line for continuing any proceedings, that objection to jurisdiction ought to be taken at the earliest opportunity provided there are sufficient materials before the court to consider it and a decision reached on it before any other step in the proceedings is taken because if there is no jurisdiction the entire proceedings are a nullity no matter how well conducted. See Western Steel Works Ltd. v. Iron and Steel Workers Union (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.30) 617; Barclays Bank of Nigeria v. C.B.N. (1976) 6 SC 175; Aloha v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 84) 508; Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350: Jeric (Nig.) Ltd. v. U. B.N. Plc. (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 447 and NDIC v. C.B.N. (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt. 766) 272. It is always in the interest of justice to raise the issue of jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity so as to save time and costs and to avoid a trial in nullity. See Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd. v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 675, at 693 where Belgore, JSC, said: “It is desirable that preliminary objection be raised early on issue of jurisdiction, but once it is apparent to any party that the court may not have jurisdiction it can be raised even viva-voce as in this case. It is always in the interest of justice to raise issue of jurisdiction so as to save time and costs and to avoid a trial in nullity.” See also Enweremadu v. Ohajuruka (supra) at 478 when Ikongbeh, JCA held inter alia: “Once the jurisdiction of court is called into question, it becomes powerless to do anything in a cause or matter before it other than to inquire into the existence or lack of jurisdiction to entertain the cause or matter, it cannot do anything in furtherance of the cause or matter.”

— Abba Aji, J.C.A. Secondi Bogban & Ors. V. Motor Diwhre & Ors. (CA/B/88/2003, 20 MAY 2005)

Was this dictum helpful?

NO JURISDICTION WHERE STATUTORY CONDITION NOT FULFILLED

After all, it is to be remembered that all appeals in this country and elsewhere exist merely by statute and unless the statutory conditions are fulfilled no jurisdiction is given to any Court of Justice to entertain them.

— Lord Atkin, Ohene Moore v. Akesseh Tayee (1933) JELR 85041 (WACA)

Was this dictum helpful?

WRIT OF SUMMONS / ORIGINATING SUMMONS DETERMINES COURTS JURISDICTION

It is settled law that it is the case of the plaintiff as stated in the writ of summons and statement of claim, where the action is commenced by way of writ of summons or the questions, reliefs and supporting affidavit, where the action is commenced by originating summons, that determines the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine same.

– Onnoghen, JSC. Elelu-Habeeb v. A.G Federation (2012)

Was this dictum helpful?

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

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?

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?

No more related dictum to show.