THE CONCEPT OF JURISDICTION

COURT LACKS JURISDICTION WHERE THERE ARE NO PROPER PARTIES

It is trite law that for a court to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identified. Before an action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be the proper parties to whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach. The question of proper parties is a very important issue which would affect the jurisdiction of the court as it goes to the foundation of the suit in limine. Where proper parties are not before the court then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit.

– Adekeye, J.S.C. Goodwill v. Witt (2011) – SC. 266/2005

WHEN CAN IT BE SAID THAT A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR A CASE

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

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BREACHED, NOT FALLING WITHIN FHC JURISDICTION, WILL BE INSTITUTED AT THE STATE HIGH COURT

Although, unlike the 1979 Constitution, Section 318(1) of the present Constitution does not define “High Court”, there is no doubt that the term carries the same meaning as given by Section 277(1) of the 1979 Constitution to mean Federal High Court or the High Court of a State. Therefore, it is my understanding that 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, See the case of Minister of Internal Affairs v. Shugaba (1982) 3 NCLR 915. It has to however 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. See: Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 3 NSCC 225. Equally, a High Court of a State shall lack jurisdiction to entertain matters of fundamental rights, although brought pursuant to section 46(2) of the Constitution where the alleged breach of such matters arose from a transaction or subject matter which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as provided by Section 251 of the Constitution.

— I.T. Muhammad, JSC. Adetona & Ors. v Igele (2011) – SC.237/2005

SUBSTANTIVE VERSUS PROCEDURAL JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

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).’

TO DETERMINE COURT’S JURISDICTION

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.’