JURISDICTION OF COURTS

Prof. O.S. Oyelade

Principles
 Introduction
• Meaning:
• Jurisdiction is the hub, the life wire or the life blood
of all judicial and even quasi-judicial proceedings.
• Any decision reached without jurisdiction by a court
of law or any tribunal is generally said to be null,
void and of no legal effect whatsoever.
• Jurisdiction is the authority given by law to a court
to try cases and rule on legal matters within a
particular geographical area and/or over certain
types of legal cases.
• It is vital to determine which court has jurisdiction before
a law suit is filed
• Another definition is that jurisdiction is the practical
authority granted to a legal body to administer justice
within a defined field of responsibility.
• In the case of Ruhrgas A. G v. Marathon Oil co. et al., 526
U.S. 574 (1999); Jurisdiction was defined as:
• a. Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue
orders,
• b. Territory within which a court or government agency
may properly exercise its power
 Fundamental Questions of Jurisdiction
• One of the most fundamental questions of law is
whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a
given case. A jurisdictional question may be broken
down into three components:
• a. Whether there is personal jurisdiction (this means
whether the court may even hear the case involving the
particular defendants).
• b. Whether there is jurisdiction over the subject
matter
• c. Whether there is jurisdiction to render the
particular judgment sought.
 Jurisdiction and Power
• The term jurisdiction can best be understood
by being compared to “power”. Any court that
has jurisdiction must have the power to
adjudicate on the matter before it. Powers of a
court refers to the type of orders that a judge
can pass in a matter. The judge has the power
to pronounce judgment and order on any
application fixed in his court.
• We have said that jurisdiction is most fundamental and it goes to
the root of every trial. In the case of G.T.B v. Toyed (Nig) Ltd & Anor
(2016) LPELR 4181 (CA), the Nigerian court of Appeal, per Ndukwe
– Anyanwu JCA restated the elementary law thus.
`“The law is well settled and it no longer admits of any argument that
jurisdiction is the very basis and the life wire of every matter and on
which any court tries or hears a case. It is metaphorically speaking, the
life blood of all trials, whether it be at the court of trial or on appeal,
and without which all such trials and hearings, are a nullity, not
withstanding how well or meticulous such a trial or proceeding had
been conducted or how sound or profound the resultant judgment. It
is simply a nullity.” See also Idrisi v. Ecodril Nig.) Ltd(2016)
2NHRLRPp.224-253
• The pre-eminence of jurisdiction is sine qua non in all
judicial proceedings, such that an objection can be raised
at any time before, during and after proceeding before the
same court, or even for the first time on appeal at the
higher courts, including the Supreme Court. Despite the
clarity of the law on this point, it is a well entrenched daily
practice in the Nigerian courts, in both civil and criminal
proceedings, to see cases raising issues of jurisdiction.
Such cases would thereby compel the defendant or an
accused person to raise a preliminary objection to the
jurisdiction of court to hear or determine the cases.
• Sometimes, the objection may be raised suo motu by the
court. However, when such an objection is raised, it is also
an elementary law that it must first be resolved by the court
one way or the other before the substantive proceedings is
commenced. Indeed, the supreme court in Ajayi v. Adebiyi
(2012) All FWLR (pt. 634) 1 SC P. 30 Per Adekeye JSC, held
inter alia, that an objection to jurisdiction or an application
to strike out a suit for being incompetent on the ground of
jurisdiction is not a demurrer and therefore can be filed and
taken even before the defendant files his statement of
defence or without even filing a defence at all.
• Furthermore, it is a standard practice for lawyers that once
an originating court process, such as a writ of summons, is
served on their clients and then passed on to them, one of
the first things they do is to first search through the process
and examine the content with a view to discovering
possible jurisdictional loopholes by which they may quickly
shut down the case of their opponents before the case gets
up at all. It is therefore due to the importance of jurisdiction
that quasi judicial function is required to ensure that the
court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter before it to
avoid embarking on a futile exercise.
 Importance of Jurisdiction

• As earlier pointed out, the pre-eminence of the requirement of jurisdiction

for validity of any judicial proceeding, is such that it can be raised at any
time, even for the first time on appeal at the supreme court. The essence of
this pre-eminence was aptly captured by the supreme court in the case of
MA'AJI GALADIMA V. ALHAJI ADAMU TAMBAI & ORS (2000) 6SC (pt.1) 196
at 206 – 207 thus:
• “Issue of courts’ jurisdiction is very pivotal and fundamental.
Because of its fundamental nature, on the authorities, it can be raised at
any stage of the trial or even on appeal, and even before the apex court.
The reason for this latitude is obvious. A court that lacked jurisdiction to
entertain a suit, either as a trial or appellate court, is incompetent to
pronounce judgment in respect of any aspect of the matter in controversy
before it. Time never runs against a court to determine its jurisdiction.
• The consequence of a court continuing a case
where it lacks jurisdiction is, as it were, like
the court embarking on a frolic which could
indisputably result in a nullity for which the
appellate court, so invited, would have no
compunction whatsoever to declare null and
void. Jurisdictional question, be it civil or
criminal matter, has the same devastating
consequence.
• An attack or question as to jurisdiction cannot be
properly glossed over by any court once it is raised by
the defendant or the respondent. The procedure by
which such a fundamental issue is raised may not be
in consonance with the stipulated rules of court for
questioning a decision of court, nevertheless, that will
never be allowed to defeat the right to question the
jurisdictional defect. To do so is to unwittingly
postpone the doom’s day (Maaji Galadima v. Tambai
(2000) 6sc (pt.1) 196 at 206 – 207)
• An interesting recent case on the issue of pre-eminence
of jurisdiction was the case of PORTS & CARGO
HANDLING SERVICES COMPANY LTD v. MIGFO NIGERIA
LTD (2012) decided by the Supreme Court. In that case,
judgment was earlier given in favour of Migfo (the
respondent) at the Federal High Court and
subsequently affirmed on appeal to the court of appeal
by the appellant. On the Appellant’s further appeal to
the Supreme Court, it was contended that the Federal
High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter
ab initio.
• The supreme court agreed with the appellant and
struck out the suit on ground that the subject matter
was a simple contract, not an admiralty matter as
erroneously conceived by the Federal High Court and
the Court of Appeal, which had earlier given judgment
in favour of the respond (Migfo). The respondent was
thereby compelled to go and start the case de novo at
the High Court of Lagos State. Again, the new case at
the High court has had to travel so far up to the Court of
Appeal on yet another objection based on the limitation
law of Lagos state 2003.
 Types of Jurisdiction
• Essentially, three types of jurisdiction have
been identified by legal scholars and they are
personal, territorial and subject – matter
jurisdictions. In IBRAHIM v. INEC (1999), this
classification was somewhat echoed by the
court in the following words.
“There must be jurisdiction on the subject matter and the person
or an instrument establishing the court.”
• a. Personal jurisdiction is the authority that a court of law
exercises over persons, regardless of the location of such
persons, for example, a high court in Lagos State may make an
order that will bind a defendant in Kano State, provided
certain due process of law such as due service of court
processes in Lagos state have been made on that defendant in
Kano State or wherever he is. Usually, the powers of a court to
exercise jurisdiction over persons are contained in the statutes
and rules of courts. See the case of APC v. Nduul, where the
court states,
• “The law is settled that where service of
process is required, failure to serve it is a
fundamental vice that touches on the
jurisdiction of the court that is seized with the
matter.”
• b. Territorial jurisdiction is the exercise of
jurisdiction within a clearly defined territory
and over specified subject matter. This
appears the most tenacious or common basis
of exercising jurisdiction both in civil and
especially, in criminal cases.
• c. Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority
over the subject of the legal questions giving
rise to the proceedings. For example, only the
High Court of a state in Nigeria has jurisdiction
over the subject matter of a divorce
proceeding, pursuant to the provisions of the
matrimonial causes Act, 2004.
• Furthermore, jurisdiction of courts can also be
classified in terms of category or hierachy of
courts or nature of subject matter, i.e. original,
appellate, concurrent and exclusive
jurisdictions
 Components of Courts as a matter of
Jurisdiction

• For a court to assume jurisdiction over any case, it

must first be competent to do so. A court is said to
be competent or said to possess jurisdiction when
certain pre requisite conditions are present. The pre
eminence of these prerequisite is underscored by
the fact that once any of them is missing, then the
court would be incompetent. This is why once the
jurisdiction of the court is challenged, it must be
considered first before any other consideration.
• The supreme court in the case of Madukolu v.
Nkemdilim (1962) enumerated the basic components
of jurisdiction of court to comprise when:
a) The court is properly constituted with respect to
number and qualification of its members;
b) The subject matter of the action is within the
jurisdiction of the court; and
c) The action is initiated by due process of the law, or
that any condition precedent to the exercise of the
court’s jurisdiction has been fulfilled.
• Once a defendant raises objection as to non
compliance with a condition precedent to the
exercise of the jurisdiction of court, it is for the
court seised of the proceedings to examine the
objection to ascertain whether it can adjudicate.
The court cannot side track such an objection.
The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that
any defect in competence is fatal, for the
proceedings are a nullity however well conducted
and decided.
• In determining the jurisdiction of a superior court with
respect to the subject matter of dispute before it, it is settled
law that, it is the examination of the claims of the plaintiff in
relation to the constitutional, as well as, statutory provisions
establishing the court that will determine whether or not a
particular court has the required jurisdiction to hear and
determine the case.
• For the purpose of examining the claims of the plaintiff, it is
the originating process filed before the court, such as a writ
of summons or an originating summons, that recourse will
be made to. In Federal Government of Nigeria v. Oshiomole
(2004) the court of Appeal restated the law thus:
• It is the claim before the Court, particularly the reliefs
being sought by the plaintiff that determines the
jurisdiction of the court. Thus, in determining whether
or not the court has jurisdiction over the subject
matter before it, the materials to consider are the
statement of claim, the writ of summons and the
particulars of claim where they are filed along with the
writ of summons.
• See also Attorney-General of the Federation v. Guardian
Newspapers Ltd (1995) 5 NWLR (pt. 398) 703