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!

WHEN A COURT IS COMPETENT TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER A SUIT

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

A court is said to be competent to exercise jurisdiction over a suit when the following are present: 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; 2. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in 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. See MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341; O’BAU ENGINEERING LTD V. ALMASOL (NIG.) LTD (2022) LPELR 57985 (SC); PETROLEUM (SPECIAL) TRUST FUND V. FIDELITY BANK & ORS (2021) LPELR 56625 (SC); ENEH V. NDIC & ORS (2018) LPELR 44902 (SC); JAMES V. INEC & ORS (2015) LPELR 24494 (SC).

— A. Jauro, JSC. PDP v INEC (2023) – SC/CV/501/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

jurisdiction

FHC & HIGH COURT HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES

A community reading of Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution and Order 1(2) of the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules would reveal undisputedly that both the Federal High Court and the High Court of a State have concurrent jurisdiction on matters of breach or likely breach of any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution. This has been the consistent position of this Court upheld in an avalanche of cases, some of which are Grace Jack v. University of Agriculture, Makurdi (2004) 17 NSCQR 90 at 100; (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 865) 208; Olutola v. University of Ilorin (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 905) 416, Ogugu v. The State (1994) 9 NWLR (Pt. 366) 1.

– J.I. Okoro JSC. Ihim v. Maduagwu (2021)

Was this dictum helpful?

COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE IF IT HAS JURISDICTION

Before a court finally determines a case pending, it is seised with jurisdiction to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction, but once the court has declined jurisdiction it is functus officio – such a decision can only be referred to an appellate court.

— O.O. Adekeye, JCA. Omotunde v. Omotunde (2000) – CA/I/M.57/2000

Was this dictum helpful?

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

RECEIVER/MANAGER WHO IS LIABLE OF CONVERSION WILL BE TRIED IN HIGH COURT OF A STATE

The position of the law is admirably captured and enhanced in the case of 7UP BOTTLING CO. LTD. and ors. v ABIOLA and SONS LIMITED (2001)13 NWLR (pt.730) 469 where the acts and conduct complained of are that of a Receiver/Manager. It was similarly argued on behalf of the Appellants in that case that because it was a Receiver/Manager who sold the Respondent’s properties, it was a matter which bordered on the operation of the companies and Allied Matters Act and falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. This Court Per ONU JSC discountenanced this argument and held that since there was an extant injunction restraining the Receiver/Manager from selling the Respondent’s properties, the sale of those properties amounted to conversion which is an action in tort over which the Kwara State High Court has jurisdiction.
(Relied on in Adetona & Ors. v Igele (2011) – SC.237/2005)

Was this dictum helpful?

THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW IS THAT JURISDICTION MUST BE HEARD FIRST

The general principle of law, backed up by legion of authorities from the apex Court is that where a jurisdiction of a Court is challenged, the Court should expeditiously attend to the objection before taking any other further step in the proceedings. The rationale behind this practice is that the question of jurisdiction of Court is a radical and crucial question of competence, for if a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, the totality of the proceedings, including orders made therein, are and remain a nullity, no matter how well conducted and brilliantly decided they might be. In other words, once an issue of jurisdiction is raised, until it is resolved, the Court cannot hear any other applications or any issue except to first determine whether it is possessed of the jurisdiction to determine the case. The Supreme Court has stated severally that it is an exhibition of wisdom to first determine when the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the matter before it. See Yusuf vs. Egbe (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 56) 341, Dapianlong vs. Dariye (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1036) 332, Ukwu vs. Bunge (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 518) 527, Nnonye vs. Anyichie (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 623, A – G Anambra vs. A-G, Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 321) 962.

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

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?

No more related dictum to show.