Meaning and importance of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the authority or power of a Court to adjudicate on a cause or matter before it or take cognizance of a matter presented before it in a formal manner for its decision.[1] It is circumscribed by the statute creating the Court or by the requirement of a law that prescribes a condition precedent for the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Court. It has been held as the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a Court of law and that without it an action will be like an animal that has been drained of its life blood, which will cease to have life.[2] Where a Court lacks jurisdiction, the proceedings, no matter how well conducted, are an exercise in futility and a nullity.
– Conditions that must be satisfied before a Court is said to be competent to exercise its jurisdiction in respect of any matter
A Court is competent when:
(1) it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications 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 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.[3]
Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a nullity however well conducted and decided: the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication.[4]
– How to determine whether a court has jurisdiction
In Ag Benue State v Umar, the court put it thus:
To determine whether a court has jurisdiction in a case, only the originating process and the supporting process had to be looked at. Originating process includes writ of summons, originating summons, petition, et.c. and supporting process includes statement of claim, supporting affidavit and the like. The court will not concern itself with opposing process such as statement of defence, counter affidavit, e.t.c. The same approach is applicable where the issue is as to whether a cause of action is disclosed or whether the Plaintiff has locus standi…[5]
– When to raise the issue of jurisdiction
The law is settled that jurisdiction is a threshold or foundational issue that can be raised anytime during the trial of a suit up to finality.[6] It can be raised at any stage of a case both at the trial and on appeal by any of the parties, and it can even be raised orally. The Court can also raise it by itself suo motu where the question involves a substantial point of law, substantive and procedural and no further evidence needs be adduced which would affect the decision.[7]
– Distinction between inherent jurisdiction and the statutory jurisdiction of the court
An important difference between the nature of the inherent jurisdiction of the court and its statutory jurisdiction lies with their sources. While the source of the statutory jurisdiction of the court is the statute itself, which will define the limits within which such jurisdiction is to be exercised. The source of the inherent jurisdiction of the court is derived from its nature as a court of law. The limits of such jurisdiction appear to elude definition, or not easily defined.[8]
– Where to commence suits upon breach of contract.
In Kraus Thompson Organisation Ltd v Unical, the Supreme Court held that on territorial jurisdiction all suits for specific performance upon a breach of contract shall be commenced and determined in the juridical division in which such contract ought to have been performed or in which the defendant resides and carried on business.[9]
– Proper time to raise/bring an objection to a procedural irregularity
It has since been established by a plethora of authorities that the appropriate time at which a party to proceedings should raise an objection based on procedural irregularity is at the commencement of the proceedings or at any time when the irregularity arises. If the party sleeps on that right and allows the proceedings to continue on the irregularity to finality, then the party cannot be heard to complain at the concluding stage of the proceedings or on appeal thereafter, that there was a procedural irregularity which vitiated the proceedings.[10]
– Effect of raising an issue of jurisdiction suo motu without hearing from the parties
Raising issue of jurisdiction suo motu is crucial because any proceedings leading to a judgment given without jurisdiction is a complete nullity however well conducted. Thus, because of its importance, it can be raised at any stage of the case, be it at the trial, on appeal to the Court of Appeal or even in Supreme Court, and the court can suomotu raise it.[11]
[1]Benue State Urban Development Board and others v Asuakor and another (2019) LPELR-47233(CA) 11-15, paras D-B.
[2]Ndaeyo v Ogunnaya (1977) 1 SC 11, Aladejobi v NBA (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt 1376) 66 and Nduul v Wayo (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt 1646) 548, 578; Shitta- Bey v Attorney-General of the Federation (1998) 7 SCNJ 264, 274.
[3] Gabriel Madukolu and others v Johnson Nkemdilim (1962) LPELR-24023(SC) 9-10 paras. F-D.
[4] Ibid.
[5](2008) 1 NWLR (Part 1068) 311 at 345 paras E-G; Adeyemi v Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31.
[6]Okwu v Umeh (2016) NWLR (Pt 1501) 120; Brittania-U (Nig.) Ltd. v Seplat Pet. Co. Dev. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt 1503) 541; Oni v Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt 1517) 193; Uber Technologies Services Nigeria Limited v Mr. Joshua Ayodele Ajayi (2020) LPELR-50807, 8-10 paras E.
[7]PetroJessica Enterprises Ltd. v Leventis Technical Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt 244) page 675, Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, and Oloriode v Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR page 390; Alioke v Oye and others (2018) LPELR-45153(SC) 7-8 paras D-E.
[8] Akilu v Fawehinmi (NO.2) (1989) LPELR-339(SC) 138 – 9 paras B; Universal Oil ltd. and one other v NDIC (2009) 4 WRN 144.
[9]Afribank Nig Plc v Bonik Industries Ltd 2005 – LPELR 7447 (CA).
[10] Uchendu and others v Ogboni and others (1999) LPELR-3287(SC) 26-27 paras A.
[11]Osadebay v Attorney General Bendel State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt 169) 525, Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd. v John Holt Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt 199) 550 and Kano v C.B.N. (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt 214) 126 and Osafile v Odi (No.1) (1990) 3 NWLR (Pt 137) 130; National Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v Weide & Co. Nig. Ltd. and others (1996) LPELR-1954(SC) 19-20 paras A-D.