OLOBA V. AKEREJA

• Pages: 120-139

120



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1988] 2 N.S.C.C.

OLOBA V. AKEREJA



5

CHIEF DANIEL AWODELE OLOBA

(For and on behalf of Sapetu Family)

V

ISAAC OLUBODUN AKEREJA

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

APPELLANT

RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 52/1986

10

OBASEKI,

NNAMANI,

KAWU,

OPUTA,

WALT,

1st July, 1988

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

J.S.C.

15

20

Practice and Procedure - Customary Cowl Grade I, Oyo State - Section 17(3) Cusionuny

Courts Law Cap. 33, Laws of Oyo State

Appeals - Grounds of Appeal - Raising issues not raised in lower court raised in appellate

court, without leave of Court - Matters of Jurisdiction - Power of Court to raise suo

1710111

- Order 7 r.2, C.A. Rules - Effect on issue of jurisdiction.

Constitutional Law - The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 - Chapter

VII - The Judicature - State High Courts - Jurisdiction - Section 236(1) of the

Constitution - Supremacy over sections 9 & 10 of the Oyo State High Cowl Laws.

Jurisdiction - Courts competence - Court of Appeal taking on the issue suo mom.

Intopretation and Consmtction - Words and Phrases - 'Status" and "member" defined -

"Family Status" distinguished from "Family membership".

ISSUES:

1.

Whether it is consonant with the essence of justice for a court to sit in judgment

on a matter over which it has no jurisdiction.

2.

What is the proper course of action for a court to take where its competence to

hear and determine a matter is challenged.

3.

Whether the issue of jurisdiction which was not raised in the lower court, can be

raised

suo motu

on appeal.

4.

Whether the issue of jurisdiction can be overriden by procedural rules of court.

5.

Where a statute establishing a court sets out its jurisdictional competence, can

such a court validly go beyond its sphere as delimited and entertain matters not

assigned to it.

6.

What is the effect of section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution on sections 9 and 10

of the Ondo State High Court Laws which delimits the jurisdiction of the High

Court of that state to specific matters, circumscribing it to the jurisdiction of Her

Majesty's High Court of Justice in England.

7.

Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court in Ondo State can still be determined

by reference to the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in England

in spite of the provisions of Section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution.

25

30

35

40

45

50

OLOBA V. AKEREJA



121

FACTS:

The appellant as plaintiff (in a representative capacity) sought certain declaratory

reliefs against the respondent in the Idanre/Ifedore Customary Court Grade I. The

reliefs sought were in respect of the membership of one Sapetu family to which the

5





plaintiff belonged and the declaration was to the effect that among other things, the

respondent was not a member of the said family and had no interest in its estates.

At the trial, the defendant/respondent took a preliminary objection to the trial of the

matter on the ground that the customary court had no jurisdiction to try the claims

as they related to chieftaincy matters and as the value of the estate of the family to

10





which the dispute related exceeded five thousand Naira (N5,000.00). The custom-

ary court ruled that it had jurisdiction whereupon the defendant/appellant appealed

to the High Court holden at Akure. That court dismissed the appeal, holding that the

subject matter of the appeal did not relate to a chieftaincy matter. On the issue of

the value of the family estate, the learned judge held that as the claim did not relate

15





ex

facie

to title to any real or personal property but as to whether or not the defend-

ant/respondent belonged to the Sapetu family, the jurisdiction of the court could not

be impeached on the question of value (of the family estate). Aggrieved, the defend-

ant/appellant appealed further to the Court of Appeal adding for the first time, a new

head of objection to jurisdiction. That court held had all the reliefs sought against

20





the appellant were declarations as to his family membership, rights, interests and

entitlements and did not fall within the jurisdiction of the customary court as pro-

vided in the relevant section of the customary court law. It went further to make ob-

servations on the jurisdiction of the High Court with reference to section 9 of the

Ondo State High Court Law, defining the extent of that jurisdiction with reference to

25





the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice in England. The appellant, aggrieved by

the decision, appealed to the Supreme Court where his main contention was that

the Court of Appeal erred in considering the new head of jurisdiction raised for the

first time by the respondent without leave of court, adding that both parties and the

court are bound by the pleadings and the grounds of appeal.

30

HELD:

1.

That there is no justice in exercising jurisdiction where there is none. It is injustice

to the law, to the courts and to the parties to do so. The Court of Appeal was

therefore not in error when it considered the issue of jurisdiction under ground

1(b) of the grounds of appeal before it, although the issue was not raised in the

35





High Court. Once an issue of jurisdiction is raised, it should be examined in all

its ramifications. It should not be compartmentalised and subjected to

piecemeal examination and treatment.

2.

That the issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence

of the court or tribunal. If a court or tribunal is not competent to entertain a

40





matter or claim, it is a waste of time to embark on the hearing and determination

of the claim or suit, matter or claim. It is therefore an exhibition of wisdom to

have the issue of jurisdiction or competence determined before embarking on

the hearing or determination of the substantive matter.

3.

That the issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental one, can be raised at any stage

45





of the proceedings in the court of first instance or in the appeal courts. It can

be raised by any of the parties or by the court itself

suo motu.

When there are

sufficient facts

ex facie

on the record establishing a want of competence or

jurisdiction in the court, it is the duty of the judge or justices to raise the issue

suo motu

if the parties fail to draw the court's attention to it.

50





4. That the issue of jurisdiction being radical and the foundation of adjudication,

cannot be defeated by the provisions of Order 7 rule 2 of the Court of Appeal

Rules. If an issue can be taken up by the court

suo motu,

leave of court to raise

such an issue becomes rather redundant. All rules of court are made in aid of

justice and that being so, the interest of justice will have to be given precedence