Limitation of Court’s jurisdiction in our jurisprudence By Philips Adu-Odogwu Who lost out? This issue of jurisdiction, as has been held over and over in the past, is very fundamental and touches the core of the competence of a court to adjudicate the claims placed before it by the litigants. Thus where a court has no jurisdiction, it lacks the competence to entertain the suit, any proceeding conducted in such suit no matter how well conducted, is a nullity. This point was made in the case of DAPIALONG V. DARIYE (2007) 4 SC (PT 111) 118 (AT 162-163 PARA 40, 4&5-15) RESPECTIVELY. WHERE ONNOGHEN JSC STATES AS FOLLOWS: “it is settled law that jurisdiction is a radical and crucial question of competence because if a court has no jurisdiction to hear and determines a case, the proceedings are and remain a nullity ab inito however well conducted and brilliantly decided they might be since a defect in competence is not intrinsic, but extrinsic, to the entire process of adjudication. Jurisdiction is therefore considered to be the nerve center of adjudication, the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in a court of law in the very same way that blood gives life to the human being in particular and the animal in general.” Jurisdiction is determined by the plaintiff’s claim as formulated by the Plaintiff where the subject matter of the suit can be found and not parties in litigation. On this point, see the cases of TUKUR V GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT 117) PG 517 @ PG 561 PARA B; ORTHOPEDIC HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT AND BOARD V GARBA (2002) 14 NWLR (PT 788) PG 538-564 PARA C-D; AND MUSTAPHA V GOVERNMENT OF LAGOS STATE (1987) 2 NWLR (PT 58) PG 539. Jurisdiction of a court to adjudicate in a matter or issue is material not only at the point of filing the suit, but also at the point of hearing and determination of same see the case of O. H. M. B V. GARBA Supra. Another very important point to note in the subject under review is the role of statutes. The courts are created by statute and the statute assigns to them their various jurisdictions. As mentioned earlier in this work, we cited the example of section 232 of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which gives original jurisdiction of certain matter to the supreme court of Nigeria. In such matter, no other Court in Nigeria can entertain them except the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in a plethoral of cases held that it is the statute creating the court that vests jurisdiction in the court. See the case of GAFER V GOVERNMENT OF KWARA STATE (2007) 1-2 189 and again the court has also said that the law that governs the jurisdiction of courts or that gives our court jurisdiction over a particular claim is the law in force at the time of hearing and the determination of the suit. SEE NEPA V EDEGBARO (2002) 18 NWLR (PT 789). SEE ALSO OLUTOLA V. UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN (2004) 11-12SC 214. The point we are making here is that the law which supports a cause of action is the law in force at the time the cause of action arose, whereas, jurisdiction of the court is determined by the state of the law conferring jurisdiction at the point in time the action was instituted and heard. This was the decision of the supreme court in the case of ADAH V. NYSC (2004) 7SC (PT 11) where this principle was driven home in the dictum of UWAIFO JSC as follows: “I think there is much merit in the contention of the respondent. The appellant appears to me to have misconceived the essence of a courts jurisdiction. It ought to be understood that the law which supports a cause of action is not necessarily co-extensive with the law which confers jurisdiction on the court which entertain the suit founded on that cause of action. The relevant law applicable in respect of a cause of action is the law in force at the time the cause of action arose whereas the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an action is determined upon the state of the law conferring jurisdiction at the point in time the action was instituted and heard. SEE UTIH V ONOYIVWE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT 166) @ 201 PER BELLO CJN. The jurisdiction of courts in this country is conferred upon them by the constitution or by statutes as may be permitted by the constitution see OSADEBEY V ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF BENDEL STATE (1991) 1 NWLR (PT 169) 525……” The issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter, where parties have failed or neglected to raise it, the court can raise it Suo Motu to do justice to the matter. On this point SEE THE CASE OF OLUTOLA V UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN SUPRA AND THE CASE OF CYRIL OSAKWE V FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) ASABA & ORS SUPRA. SEE ALSO THE CASE OF ADAH V. NYSC SUPRA. In conclusion, we refer you to the concurring judgment of PATS-ACHOLONU, JSC IN THE CASE OF OLUTOLA V UNIVERSITY OF ILLORIN @ PAGE 651. “the argument of the appellant that because the cause of action arose at the time when the State High Court where the action was later Instituted had jurisdiction therefore, regardless of the fact that before the action was taken, that like all state High Courts had been divested of jurisdiction by reason of the amendment of section 230(1) of the 1979 constitution by constitution (suspension and modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993, could still entertain the case, is rather skewed and puerile. Source: VANGUARD
Posted on: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 12:00:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015