ARE COURTS AT LIBERTY TO ENTERTAIN CASES?

It is indeed a naked  truth that courts in Nigeria are all courts of the federation, be it a federal or state court, just as we have the national and regional assemblies, pursuant to section 4 of the 1999 constitution, to legislate upon affairs of national and regional interest, respectively. Courts all work to ensure steady administration of justice. However, despite serving a common purpose (administering justice), they each have powers accrued to them either individually or coordinately to wield. And this is what, in law, is referred to as JURISDICTION. It is vested in a court by the constitution and the enabling statute that establish such court. This power is so fundamental that if at anytime or stage arises a question that invokes dubiousity as to the authority of a court, whether from either party, or by the court suo motu, such doubt has to be cleared before any other issue(s) in the such case. In GTB v. TOYED (NIG) LTD & ANOR (2016) LPELR-CA/L/851/2013, the Court of Appeal in Justice Ndukwe-Anyawu' s voice reiterated the position of Law in these words:

"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 notwithstanding how well or meticulous such a trial or proceeding had been conducted or how sound or profound the resultant judgement. It is simply a nullity."

A matter may even get struck out before a court begins to sit for it. Legal practitioners often examine originating court processes, for instance a writ of summon, served on their clients for possible jurisdictional deficiency, a ground upon which they may cripple a case prior to its rising on its feet. In the old days, it is a prevalent practice to do this before filing a statement of defence, or even if one intends not to. In Ajayi v Adebiyi (2012), per Adekeye JSC held, among other things, that any objection filed to strike out a case on grounds of jurisdictional incompetence is not a demurrer, and may be filed and addressed before a defendant's statement of defence, or notwithstanding if they intend not to file any defence.

The above position has, in recent time, been invalidated as most, if not all rules of courts now require that a respondent must file their statement of defence, if any, alongside or before filing a preliminary objection. See, for instance: Order 24 Rule 1 of the High Court (Uniform Civil Procedure) Rules 2004; Order 22 Rule 1 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004; and Order 22 Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012. The Lagos High Court Rules simply declare “No demurrer shall be allowed.” However, a new practice or procedure in lieu of demurrer now allowed under the various rules of courts is for a defendant to incorporate whatever point of law or objection he may have in his pleading. See Order. 22 r. 2 (1) & (2) of the Lagos High Court Rules.

Should there come up a question as to the estimated cost that lack of jurisdiction can incur on a litigant, let it be known that such precedent is laid in Ports and Cargo Handling Company Ltd v. Migfo Nigeria Ltd (2012) by the supreme court. This case had earlier been settled and judgment delivered in favour of the respondent at the Federal High Court and affirmed by the court of Appeal on appeal filed by the appellant. However, on further appeal filed to the supreme court, it was contended that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter ab initio as it was a matter of simple contract and not of admiralty as was misconstrued by the High Court and the Court of Appeal which had earlier delivered judgment in favour of the respondent (Migfo). The matter was thereby stroke out and the respondent was compelled to go and start the case de novo at the High Court of Lagos State. The new case, again, was contested up to the court of Appeal on yet another objection fortified by the Limitation Law of Lagos State 2003.

What is Jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction is defined as the superstructure upon which the powers of a court to preside over a case before it is founded. Metaphorically speaking, jurisdiction is to a case, what blood is to the body. In Arjay Ltd v. AIMS Ltd (2003) the court viewed jurisdiction as “…fulcrum, centrepin, or the main pillar upon which the validity of any decision of any court stands and around which other issues rotate. It cannot be assumed or implied, it cannot also be conferred by consent or acquiescence of parties.” Basically, legal scholars have distilled three prerequisites as components of jurisdiction, namely: personal jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. Components of jurisdiction can also be stratified based on hierarchy of courts. These are original, appellate, concurrent and exclusive jurisdiction.

To be continued…

 

Written By:

Solahudeen Ridwanullah O.,

Member, Solace Chamber, BUK.