Jurisdiction

• Pages: 6-1015

6

JURISDICTION.

ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION BY COURT.

Can issue of absence of jurisdiction be waived?“It is also the law that since proceedings

conducted without jurisdiction are null and void Odutola v. Kayode(1994) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

324) 1] no act of waiver, or act that may be seen to have that effect, can confer jurisdiction to

validate such proceedings: see Ishola v. Ajiboye(1994) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 352) 506. It seems to

me that under no point of view can Mr. Fagbemi’s submission on res judicataor issue estoppel

applying against the respondent be tenable.” – PerTobi, J.S.C., in F.R.N. v. IfegwuSuit No.

S.C. 115/2002; (2003) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 842) 113 at 188.

Effect and treatment of proceedings conducted without jurisdiction. (1) “The consequence

of the instant case instituted in Ibadan Judicial Division in Oyo State High Court instead of

Ilesa judicial division in Osun State High Court is that the former is devoid of jurisdiction. It

is now very well settled that where a cause of action or a matter is heard and a ruling or

judgment is delivered without jurisdiction, the proceedings will be null and void ab initio.See

Adesola v. Abidoye (supra) at page 79 and Oshatoba v. Olujitan(2000) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 655)

159; (2000) 2 S.C.N.J. 159 at 169.” – PerIbiyeye, J.C.A., in Afribank Nig. Plc. v. Bonik Ind.

Ltd.Suit No. CA/1/69/01; (2006) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 973) 300 at 314. (2) “Jurisdiction is so

fundamental that the adjudicating Court should determine the issue first before starting any

proceedings and if the Court proceeded and it was found that the Court had nojurisdiction in

the matter, all the proceedings however well conducted will amount to nothing but a nullity.

The action is therefore subject to being struck out. See Okolo & Anor. v. U.B.N. Ltd. (2004) 3

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 859) 87 at 110; Jeric Nigeria Ltd. v. U.B.N. Plc. (Oct. to Dec. 2004) 4

N.S.C.Q.R. 254 at 263; (2000) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 691) 447; Okoye v. Nigerian Construction

and Furniture Co. Ltd.(1991) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 199) 501; Baba v. Habib Nigeria Bank Ltd.

(2001) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 712) 496.” – PerIbiyeye, J.C.A., in Afribank Nig. Plc. v. Bonik Ind.

Ltd. Suit No. CA/1/69/01; (2006) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 973) 300 at 309 - 310.

Effect of absence of cause of action and jurisdiction in election petition.(1) “A cause of

action has already been defined in the course of his judgment and it is apt to say that if no cause

of action has accrued there is no basis in the petition to challenge the candidate returned as

elected. See Thomas v. Olufosoye(1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 18) 669 at 671; S.P.D.C. (Nig.) Ltd.

v. X.M. Fed. Ltd.(supra). It is of particular moment to state the law that where a cause of action

is absent in a suit, the Court is divested of jurisdiction to entertain it. The cause of action which

is in nature jurisdictional can be garnered from the petition or pleadings. Once a lower Court

has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter and even if it had done so, such adjudication would

be adjudged a nullity by the appellate Court since jurisdiction is a very fundamental issue that

robs on the competence of the Court to hear and determine a matter. It is also the law that where

a party submits itself to a Court for adjudication of a matter for which it is seeking redress

without cause of action, it cannot clothe the Court with jurisdiction to hear and determine the

matter. In other words, a proceeding that emanated from a Court without jurisdiction is like

one that never took off atall because the Court should not have entertained the suit for it is

incompetent to do so. See F.R.I.N. v. Gold(2007) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1044) 1 at 19.” – Per

7

Ibiyeye, J.C.A., in Orji v. Ugochukwu Suit No. CA/PH/EPT/197/08; (2009) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

1161) 207 at 283 - 284. (2) “It is apparent from the state of proceedings in the petition before

the trial Tribunal that the 1stand 2nd petitioners/1st and 2nd respondents in their reliefs (iii),

(iv) and (v) and paragraph 6(a), (b) and (c) (already reproduced) where the petitioners did not

mince words in alleging that the result of the attendant election of 14th April, 2007 had not

been announced by the Resident Electoral Commissioner. In view of this clear assertion, albeit

self defeatist, the 1st and 2nd petitioners/1st and 2nd respondents, by virtue of the several

principles on competence of a petition, it will be foolhardy for this Court being an appellate

Court, to hold that the petition in issue conferred jurisdiction on the trial Tribunal. I am not

unmindful of the argument of the learned senior counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents first,

that in the construction of the instant petition there is need to globally review it. I have reviewed

the entire two petitions and observed that the petitioners/respondents in particularly the vital

aspects of the petitions, that is to say the reliefs sought where they emphatically averred that

the results of the election have not been announced. That in effect means that the trial Tribunal

was not vested with jurisdiction because petitions are devoid of cause of action. Secondly, that

the petitioners/1st and 2nd respondents in paragraph 6(a), (b) and (c) of the petition averred

that although there was an announcement that returned the 1st and 2nd respondents/1st and 2nd

appellants as the winners of the election in point on 15th April, 2007 by Mr. E.E. Enabor but

that that declaration was irregular as he was not the proper officer to do so. It was instead the

Resident Electoral Commissioner, Mr. Solomon Soyebi, who is statutorily designated to do so.

I am of the strong view that the import of the alleged inadvertence on the part of I.N.E.C. is

that declaration of results was notwithin the contemplation of paragraph 4(1)(a), (b) and (c) of

the First Schedule to the Electoral Act, 2006. The consequence was that there was no

declaration of results of the election that took place on 14th April, 2007. In these circumstances

and in view of the special nature of election matters petition and/or petitions as the entire

proceedings thereon are a nullity.” – Per Ibiyeye, J.C.A., in Orji v. Ugochukwu Suit No.

CA/PH/EPT/197/08; (2009) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1161) 207 at 284 - 285.

Effect of absence of condition precedent for exercise of Court jurisdiction. “It is also trite

that where a condition precedent for the exercise of the Courts jurisdiction has not been

fulfilled, such a Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction or competence to adjudicate in the matter

or suit and where a Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate in a proceeding, such a proceeding

when conducted is or amounts to a nullity however well or beautifully conducted it might have

been - see Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 S.C.N.L.R. 341; (1962) 1 All N.L.R. (Pt. 4) 887,

and Attorney General Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 111) 552; and Lawal v.

Oke (2001) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 711) 88.” – Per Adamu, J.C.A., in Akingbehin v. ThompsonSuit

No. CA/L/59/2004; (2008) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1083) 270 at 290 - 291.

Effect of absence of jurisdiction of Court.(1) “This Court cannot invoke Section 294 (5) of

the 1999 Constitution tosave these provisions of Section 285 (7) and (8) of the 1999

Constitution (as amended) as absence of jurisdiction is irreparable in law.” – Per Adekeye,

J.S.C., in P.D.P. v. Okorocha Suit No. S.C. 17/2012; (2012) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1323) 205 at

256. (2)“It is trite law that if the Court has no jurisdiction to hear a case, the proceedings are

and remain a nullity however well conducted and brilliantly decided they might otherwise have

8

been as a defect in competence is not intrinsic but extrinsic to adjudication. See Trustees,

P.A.W. v. Trustees A.A.C.C.(2002) 15 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 790) 424; APP v. Ogunsola(2002) 5

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 761) 484 & Lawal v. Oke(2001) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 711) 88.” – PerAugie, J.C.A.,

in W.R.P.C. Ltd. v. Agbuje Suit No. CA/B/143/98; (2005) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 917) 63 at 91. (3)

“The absence of jurisdiction accentuates the want of legal capacity and competence in the Court

to hear and determine the subject matter before it. In the absence of jurisdiction, there is no

competence to exercise the judicial powers vested in the Courts by section 6(6)(b) of the

Constitution. Any such exercise of jurisdiction, which is an obvious futility, is a nullity and

proceedings and judgment relating thereto are null and void.” – Per Sankey, J.C.A., in Adams

v. Umar Suit No. CA/IL/EP/SH/11/2007; (2009) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1133) 41 at 116.

Effect of absence of jurisdiction on judg ment of Court. “Any judgment delivered by a Court

in a matter which it has no jurisdiction to decide is of no consequence and is a nullity. See Shell

Petroleum Development Co. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Abel Isaiah (2001) 6 N.S.C.Q.R. (Pt. 1) 542, 548,

551, (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 723) 168. In the instant case, the issue of jurisdiction was raised

but instead of the learned trial Judge determining the issue one way or the other, he proceeded

to deciding the substantive action before him. He is clearly in error to have taken that course.

The proceedings before him have been infected by the stubborn and incurable virus called the

jurisdiction. The entire proceeding is a nullity.” – PerBelgore, J.C.A., in F.C.E., Pankshin v.

Pusmut Suit No. CA/J/257/2002; (2008) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1101) 405 at 421.

Effect of absence of jurisdiction on proceedings of Court.(1) “Where a Court lacks

jurisdiction, it has no power to exercise any power in relation to the suit. More importantly

where a Court purports to exercise a jurisdiction, which it does not have the proceedings before

it and its judgment will amount to a nullity. See Akinbobola v. Plisson Flisko (Nig.) Ltd. & 2

Ors.(1991) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 167) 270; (1991) 1 S.C.N.L.R. 25 58; Salati v. Shehu(1986) 1

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 15) 198 and Sode v. A.-G., Federal(1986) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 24) 568. Without

jurisdiction all ministersand labourers in the temple of justice labour in vain because it is the

power house of the Court. See also Nigeria Air Force v. James(2002) 18 N.W.L.R. (Pt 798)

295 at 329.” – PerOmokri, J.C.A., in N.P.A. v. Eyamba Suit No. CA/C/61/2003; (2005) 12

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 939) 409 at 438- 439. (2) “It is true that Courts have always jealously guided

their jurisdiction as it was held in Barclays Bank Ltd. v. C.B.N.(1976) 1 All N.L.R. 409 and

Agwuna v. A.-G., Fed., (1995) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 396) 418 at 433. But where aCourt has no

jurisdiction to entertain a suit then there is nothing to be jealously guided, as it has no

jurisdiction to determine or pronounce on the rights between the parties and the adjudication

before it is an exercise in futility. See Salati v. Shehu(1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 15) 198 and

Jadesimi v. Okotie Eboh (supra).” – PerOmokri, J.C.A., in N.P.A. v. Eyamba Suit No.

CA/C/61/2003; (2005) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 939) 409 at 444. (3) “Where a Court lacks the required

jurisdiction to adjudicate in a matter asin the instant case, its proceedings amount or will

amount to a nullity however well conducted they might have been. This is because of the

fundamental nature and importance of the issue of jurisdiction, which goes to the root of and

is the life wire of every adjudication see Madukolu v. Nkemdilim(1962) 2 S.C.N.L.R. 341; A.-

G., Lagos State v. Dosunmu(1989) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 111) 552; and Utih v. Onoyivwe(1991) 1

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 166) 166 at p. 206. In the instant case, the proceeding of the lower Court