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!

RULES OF COURT DO NOT VEST JURISDICTION IN A COURT OF LAW

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

There is another aspect of the matter and it is the citation of Order 43 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Abia State. While I agree that they are the current Rules, can Rules of Court vest jurisdiction in a court of law? Rules of court do not possess any legal capacity to vest jurisdiction in a court. That is never their function. The function belongs to the Constitution and statutes; not rules of court. I will therefore not examine the content of Order 43 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules of Abia State.

— Niki Tobi, JSC. Buhari v. INEC (2008) – SC 51/2008

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction

NO JURISDICTION MAKES THE PROCEEDING A NULLITY

The Law is well settled that where a court has no jurisdiction to entertain any claim, anything done in respect of the claim will be an exercise in futility. In the celebrated case on the subject of jurisdiction and competence of court of Madukolu & others v Nkemdilim & others (1962) 2 SCNLR 342; (1962) NSCC 374; (1962) 1 All NLR 587; Bairamian, F.J. stated the law at page 595 as follows:- “Before discussing those portions of the record, I shall make some observations on jurisdiction and the competence of a court. Put it briefly, a court is competent when:- (1) it is properly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and (2) the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature of the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and (3) the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfilment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.” Once there is a defect in competence, it is fatal as the proceedings are a nullity. See Ojo-Ajao & others v Popoola Ajao & others (1986) 5 NWLR (Part 45) 802 and Attorney-General Anambra State v Attorney-General of the Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (Part 302) 692. — Mohammed JSC. AG Kano State v AG Federation (2007) – SC 26/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

COMPETENCE IS SOUL OF ADJUDICATION – JURISDICTION MUST BE SATISFIED

African Songs Limited & Anor v. King Sunday Adeniyi Adegeye (2019) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1656) 335 @ p. 365 – 366: “My lords, while in today’s jurisprudence of ‘substantial justice’ the issue of ‘mere technicality’ no longer holds sway, yet it is truism that competence is the soul of adjudication. It is in this sense the issue of competence can no longer in law truly be regarded as ‘mere technicality’ but rather be seen as substantial issue of law. In other words, while eschewing technicality for its sake, a Court can only exercise jurisdiction where all conditions precedent to the exercise of its powers have been fulfilled.”

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?

SHIFT FROM THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT JURISDICTION MUST BE HEARD FIRST

A Court is naked and exposed without jurisdiction. It is therefore the general rule to determine jurisdiction first whilst it is an exceptional rule to take steps in defending of protecting the authority of the court first before jurisdiction. However, in recent times, there appears to be a move or a shift by the courts away from the general principle of law which state that the issue of jurisdiction must be determined first before taking any other step in the proceedings. This is due to some unscrupulous litigants who perch on the general principle of objection of jurisdiction to intentionally delay litigation and prosecutions of cases to the annoyance of their adversaries and in most cases resulting to abuse of court processes. In such cases the litigants are bent to drag the issue of jurisdiction up to the Apex Court while the substantive matter is stayed in the trial court thereby resulting in delay of cases. In order to honour the time adage of “justice delayed is just denied,” some courts have employed the practice of hearing preliminary objections on jurisdiction along with the substantive matter but decide the issue of jurisdiction first in the judgment. Some courts also in the spirit of quick dispensation of justice, have also made Rules of Court which have provided for the consolidation of preliminary objection with any other court process where the other process is an originating summons where the facts are not in dispute. See Order 29 Rule 1 of the Federal High Court Rules, 2009; Inakoju vs. Adeleke (2007) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423, First Inland Bank Plc. vs. Alliance International Nigeria Limited delivered on 23/1/2013 in CA/E/96/2009.

– T. Akomolafe-Wilson, JCA. Onnoghen v. FRN (2019) – CA/A/44C/2019

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE A PARTY IS A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY, THE FHC THAT HAS JURISDICTION

In the case of INEGBEDION V. SELO-OJEMEN & ANOR. (2013) LPELR – 19769 (SC); the Apex Court held: “The effect of Paragraphs (p), (q) and (r) of Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution is to vest exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court over all civil causes and matters in which the Federal Government or any of its agencies is a party. See NEPA V. EDEGBERO (2002) 103 LRCN 2280 at 2281 2282. The provision to Section 251 (1) of the 1999 Constitution does not in any way detract from the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Federal High Court by virtue of Section 251 (1) (p), (q) and (r). Consequently the proviso cannot apply.” Per Stanley Shenko Alagoa, J.S.C. (Pp 13 -14 para F – B).

Furthermore the Supreme Court went on to state that: “The law is unequivocally stated by the 1999 Constitution [as amended] in Section 251 (1) (p), (q), (r) and by this Court that where in a matter, one of the parties is the Federal Government or any of its Agencies, it is only the Federal High Court that has exclusive jurisdiction. A State High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a matter. See: NATIONAL ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY V. EDEGBERO (2002) 18 NWLR (part 789) 79.” Per Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, J.S.C (p. 15, paras A – B).

Was this dictum helpful?

ALLEGATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION IS ENOUGH TO TRIGGER THIS COURT JURISDICTION

In the case of His Excellency Vice-President Alhaji Samuel Sam-Sumana v. Republic of Sierra Leone.-SUIT NO: ECW/CCJ/APP/38/16 and JUD NO: ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/17 (At page 14 of the judgment); the court held that: “Indeed Allegations of violations of Human Rights by an Applicant is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. This is distinct from the issues of the veracity of the allegation.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.