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!

SUBSTANTIVE VERSUS PROCEDURAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction

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?

WRIT & STATEMENT OF CLAIM MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED TO ASCERTAIN JURISDICTION

In their arguments on the sole issue, both learned counsel for the parties correctly stated the often-stated principle of law in determining whether or not a court has jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of a suit. That is that the writ of summons and the Statement of claim must be carefully examined. See OPITI v. OGBEIWI (1992) 4 NWLR (pt.234) 184 at 195; ADEYEMI v OPEYORI (1976) 9-10 SC.31 at 49. It is well settled that where there is no jurisdiction to hear and determine a cause or matter, everything done in such want of jurisdiction is a nullity. See MUSTAPHA v. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1987) NWLR (pt.58).

— S. Galadima JSC. Adetona & Ors. v Igele (2011) – SC.237/2005

Was this dictum helpful?

FAILURE TO CITE SPECIFIC ARTICLES IN CHARTER CANNOT OUST JURISDICTION – (African Court)

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

Was this dictum helpful?

ISSUES ON CONSTITUTION AND JURISDICTION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY

It is crystal clear that the question involved in issue 2 for the determination of this court is entirely constitutional. A constitutional issue, like the question of jurisdiction, is not only fundamental but must be disposed of by the court as soon as it is raised to ensure that the proceedings in which it is raised is not rendered nugatory and null and void and that the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land is not breached. See Alhaji Rufai Agbaje and others v. Mrs. W.A. Adelekan and others (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 595 at 614. It is in the interest of the best administration of justice that where the issue of jurisdiction or a constitutional issue is raised in any proceedings before any court, it should be dealt with at the earliest opportunity and before a consideration of any other issues raised in the proceedings as anything purportedly done without or in excess of jurisdiction or in breach of the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, by any court established under the said Constitution is a nullity and of no effect whatever. See On venta and others v. Oputa and others (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt.60) 259; (1987) 2 N.S.C.C. 900; Attorney General of the Federation and others v. Sode and other (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 128) 500; (1990) I N.S.C.C. 271; Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517 at 545 etc. Accordingly, I will proceed firstly to examine issue 2 which raises a grave constitutional question in this appeal.

— Iguh JSC. Onuoha v State (1998) – SC. 24/1996

Was this dictum helpful?

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

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?

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CLAIM THAT DETERMINES JURISDICTION

It is trite law that it is the claim of the Plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court. P & C.H.S CO. LTD. & ORS. V. MIGFO (NIG.) LTD. & ANOR. (2012) VOL. 212 LRCN 1; ABDULHAMID V. AKAR (2006) 5 SCNJ 43. Making it more explicit, the Apex Court in the case of OLORUNTOBA-OJU & ORS. V. DOPAMU & ORS. (2008) LPELR 2595 (SC) P. 19 PARAS. A-B, Per Oguntade JSC, held thus: “The jurisdiction of the Court will be determined by the subject matter of the claim and not the claim relating to the injunction which was an ancillary relief and depend on the primary claim.”

— U. Onyemenam, JCA. Iheme v Chief of Defence Staff (2018) – CA/J/264/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.