THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF JURISDICTION

FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT CLAIM HINGED ON SUBJECT MATTER OUTSIDE FHC JURISDICTION, THE FHC LACKS JURISDICTION

The Supreme Court in ADETONA V. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (2011) 7 NWLR (PT. 1247) PG 542 at page 543 held: “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. However it should 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.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the most explicit terms interpreted Section 46(2) of the Constitution at P.564, para. E; F, thus: “On Jurisdiction of the Federal and State High Court over action for enforcement of fundamental rights – A High Court of a State lacks Jurisdiction to entertain matters on Fundamental Rights, although brought pursuant to Section 46(2) of the Constitution, where the alleged breach arose from a transaction or subject matter which falls within the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as provided by Section 251 of the Constitution.”

JURISDICTION IS FUNDAMENTAL TO ADJUDICATION

Jurisdiction, it is settled, is fundamental to adjudication. It is a radical and crucial necessity for, as in the instant case, where a Court proceeds without jurisdiction to hear the case, the proceedings so embarked upon by the Court are a nulity ab initio however well conducted the proceedings and brilliantly decided the issues agitated therein are. Defect in the Court’s competence is intrinsic and not extrinsic to the entire adjudicatory process. See Oloriode V. Oyebi (1984) 5 SC 1 at 32 33, Mustapha V, Governor of Lagos State and Musaconi Limited V. Mr. H, Aspinall (2013) LPELR 20745 (SC). It must be restated that a Court is only vested with jurisdiction and power to adjudicate on an issue when the matter is brought before it in accordance with both substantive and adjectival law. See Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) SCNLR 341, Ukwu V. Bunge (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt 678) 527.

— M.D. Muhammad, JSC. Onyekwuluje v Animashaun (2019) – SC.72/2006

TORT OF CONVERSION IS ACTIONABLE AT THE HIGH COURT

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)

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.”