Once the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the matter before it, it has a duty to put an end to the proceedings, Sken-consult (Nig.) Ltd v Ukey [1981] 1 SC 6, 25; Adesokan and Ors. v. Adetunji and Ors. [1994] LPELR-152 (SC); Metilelu v. Olowo-Opejo and Anor [2006] LPELR-11598 (SC).
— C.C. Nweze, JSC. Uzoho v NCP (SC.141/2007, Friday, May 13, 2022)
SHARE ON
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)
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.’
It is now settled law that jurisdiction is the life blood of adjudication in that any decision by a Court that lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter is a nullity no matter how well conducted see Madukolu vs Nkemdilim 1962 NSCC 374 at 379-380. When can it be said that a Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a case? As stated earlier, the Supreme Court in the above cited case decided that for a Court to have the requisite jurisdiction to hear a matter: (a) the Court must be properly constituted as regard numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; (b) the subject matter of the case is within the jurisdiction of the Court and there is no feature in the case that prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and (c) the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of the law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
— Onnoghen, CJN. Nwachukwu v Nwachukwu (2018) – SC.601/2013
Para. 12: “The plaintiffs failed to address the issues raised by the defendant in the preliminary objection. This court in its inherent jurisdiction to do justice at all times will however proceed to analyze the issues raised in line with the facts presented by the plaintiffs in the initiating application. This is more so as jurisdiction is determined from the facts presented in a Plaintiffs application and not from the defence.”
— Osaghae v Nigeria (2017) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/17
Failure to cite any specific articles of the Charter or any other human rights instrument ratified by the Respondent is no reason to oust the jurisdiction of the Court.
– CHACHA v. THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA (003/2012) [2014] AFCHPR 48 para 122
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.’
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry