Nigerian legal system and limits of courts’ jurisdiction
Many of the cases in Nigerian courts today border on the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain them. The case of CYRIL O. OSAKWE V. FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) ASABA & ORS (ORS) 2010 2-3 SC (PT 111) 158@ 190-192 is one of the numerous cases wherein the issue of jurisdiction was stretched to the Supreme Court for pronouncement on the subject matter. This case originated from the Delta State High Court, Asaba, and travelled all the way to the Supreme Court, Abuja, only for it to suffer in the hands of jurisdiction.
At the Delta State High Court, the issue of the court’s jurisdiction to try the matter was first raised. The trial court in its ruling held that the court was robbed of jurisdiction by an ouster clause in Decree No. 12 of 1994. But it turned around again to hear the matter on the grounds that the plaintiff’s action arose before the promulgation of the said decree. At page 182 of the records, His Lordship states as follows:
“No doubt the plaintiff (sic) cause of action had arisen before Decree No. 12 of 1994 was promulgated. This Decree took effect from 1st November, 1993. Ordinarily, on the face of it, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but section 2(6) of Decree No. 12 of 1994 provides as follows: ‘No civil proceedings shall lie or be instituted in any court for an account of or in respect of any act, matter or thing done or purported to be done under or pursuant to any decree or edict, and if such proceedings are instituted before, on or after the commencement of this decree, the proceedings shall abate, be discharged and made void’. It is clear that the law, as it stands, the plaintiff cannot enforce any rights he may have in any court of law. This is because the suit which he filed before coming into force of the Decree No. 12 of 1994 abates after the commencement of the decree. The jurisdictions of this court to entertain this suit have been taken away by this decree. It is unfortunate I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Ijatuyi, counsel to the plaintiff, that since the commencement date of Decree No. 12 of 1994 is 18th November, 1995 and the plaintiff was in court before that date, this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.”
This is the true position of the law regarding jurisdiction, but His Lordship at page 184, with greatest respect, made a U-turn and stated, inter alia: “This action is well within the ambit or provision of section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution (suspension and modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993 since the commencement date of Decree No. 107 of 1993 is 17th November, 1993 and this matter was filed before 17th November, 1994 (sic) when the cause of action arose. This court has not lack jurisdiction (sic) to determine the matter.”
The Supreme Court in deciding the appeal in this matter per I. F. OGBUAGU, JSC said: “It is now settled that the issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and crucial; it is in fact a threshold matter. Where a court has no jurisdiction, any action taken will be a nullity, however well conducted.”
In ADAH V NYSC (2004) All FWLR (PT 223) 1850 also reported (2004) 13 NWLR (PT 891) 639@ 464 OF PART 905, the Supreme Court (per UWAIFO) JSC stated: “The law which supports a cause of action is not necessarily co-extensive with the law which confers jurisdiction on the court which entertains 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 also section 251 of the 1999 Constitution and section 254C (1) of the Third Alteration Act to the 1999 Constitution. For the purpose of clarity, section 254C(1) of the Third Alteration Act to the 1999 Constitution provides as follows: “Notwithstanding the provision of section 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in this constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction exclusive of any other court in civil cause and matters.”
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 determine a case, the proceedings are and remain a nullity ab initio, 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-centre 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; ORTHOPAEDIC 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.
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. Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria gives original jurisdiction of certain matters to the Supreme Court. In such matters, no other court in Nigeria can entertain them except the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court in a plethora 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. Again, the court has also said that the law that governs the jurisdiction of courts or that gives courts 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 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 court’s 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 entertains 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).
As stated above, jurisdiction of a court is determined by the following: (1) The plaintiff’s claim, and (2) statutes. On 1 above, jurisdiction is determined from the claim as formulated by the plaintiff. The subject matter of a suit is found on the claims, not on the parties to the litigation. Secondly, every court is a product of a statute. And every statute that creates a court assigns to it its scope of duties or responsibilities.
Jurisdiction, therefore, is distinct from cause of action. The two should not be mixed.
By: Philips Adu-Odogwu
Adu-Odogwu wrote in from Phil and Palmy Solicitors, Garki-Abuja.