BY: CHINAGOROM KINGSLEY ANYANWU & IFEANYICHUKWU OGBODO
ABSTRACT
Jurisdiction serves as the foundational pillar of the Nigerian adjudicatory process, often described as the lifeblood or oxygen of litigation. This article provides a comprehensive examination of the multi-faceted nature of jurisdiction within the Nigerian legal framework, beginning with a conceptual analysis of its meaning as a creature of statute and the Constitution. The authors employed a doctrinal legal research method which incorporates both primary and secondary sources of law and legal materials. Hitherto speaking, the state High Court is said not to have jurisdiction in matters where the defendant is a federal government agency. However, this article gives an insight into judicial authorities wherein the state High Court has jurisdiction in such situations. This article clarifies the concurrent jurisdiction of the state high court and Area/Customary court on land situated at the rural area. It also addresses issues on matters where the state high court and federal high court shares concurrent jurisdiction, and the most recent judicial authority that equally gives the National Industrial Court jurisdiction in respect of the same subject matter. This article gives a brief historical background of the National Industrial Court and how its jurisdiction cuts across the constitution, national industrial act and trade union act. Also, this article discusses extensively how to ascertain the jurisdiction of court in online defamation, distinguishing between where the information is viewed and downloaded. Another salient area of this article is the clarification made in cases where a child is born out of wedlock, which court exactly is vest with jurisdiction to hear such matters? Similarly, this article discusses which court has jurisdiction where One of the Parties Is Outside Nigeria and the Marriage was not Celebrated in Nigeria. Conclusively, this article made/proffers recommendations particularly in emerging area of law like online defamation, having borrowed leaf from jurisdictions like the United States of America and United Kingdom
INTRODUCTION
In the architecture of Nigerian jurisprudence, jurisdiction is the bedrock upon which the entire edifice of justice is constructed. It is a fundamental principle of law that no matter how brilliantly a case is argued or how meticulously a judgment is written, the entire exercise remains an exercise in futility if the presiding court lacks the requisite power to adjudicate. As the Supreme Court has poignantly noted, jurisdiction is the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. It is the power of the court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject matter and the parties. Jurisdiction defines the power of courts to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions and declare judgment. It is the legal right by which judges exercise authority.[1] The concept of jurisdiction is not a matter of judicial discretion or a gift that parties can bestow upon a court by agreement. Rather, it is a radical power donated strictly by the Constitution or relevant statutes. In the Nigerian context, this power is distributed across a dual system of Federal and State courts, often leading to a jurisdictional tug-of-war that requires careful navigation by legal practitioners. For instance, whether a matter involves a simple contract in a State High Court, an industrial dispute in the National Industrial Court, or a challenge to a Federal agency in the Federal High Court, the first port of call for any judge is to confirm their jurisdiction to hear the cause. This article aims to serve as a contemporary guide to the shifting sands of jurisdictional rules in Nigeria. It moves beyond the traditional definitions to address how the law has adapted to modern realities, such as digital publications and multi-jurisdictional crimes. By examining the essential factors that clothe a court with authority ranging from the proper service of process to the domicile of a petitioner in divorce proceedings this work provides a roadmap for ensuring that the pillar of jurisdiction remains standing, thereby preventing the collapse of the adjudicatory building.
1. MEANING OF JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction has been held to be authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases. It is also the legal right by which judges exercise their authority, and it exists when the court has cognizance of the class of cases involved, proper parties are present and the point to be decided is within the powers of court.[2]
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, jurisdiction is defined as ‘a court’s power to decide a case or matter in controversy and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject matter and the parties.[3]
Think of jurisdiction as a judge’s legal driver’s license. Just as a person can’t legally drive a trailer with a motorcycle license, a court cannot hear a case unless the law specifically gives it the keys.
The late Justice Niki Tobi, in his academic writings and judicial pronouncements, often described jurisdictions as the ‘alpha and omega’ of a case.[4] In the same vein, Afe Babalola, SAN, in his seminal work titled ‘Enforcement of Judgments,’ emphasizes that jurisdiction is a radical issue.[5] He argue that because it goes to the root of the court’s power, it is the only issue that can be raised at any stage of proceedings, even for the first time at the Supreme Court, without leave.
Going forward, in the recent case of MATANKARI v. MANYA,[6] the court stated that jurisdiction isn’t something a judge can just claim or that parties can agree to give a court. It comes strictly from the Constitution or Statutes. In other words, there is no middle ground here. You either have it or you don’t. As the court noted, it applies across the board from English Common Law to Islamic Law/Customary law.
2. FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE JURISDICTION OF COURT TO ENTERTAIN A CAUSE OR MATTER
Fidelis Nwadialo, in Civil Procedure in Nigeria, notes that the Madukolu factors are not merely cumulative but independent requirements.[7] He argues that while composition and subject matter are substantive, conditions precedent often bridge the gap between procedure and substance. Academically, this is significant because it highlights that a court can have the power to hear a case but be restrained from exercising it due to a procedural skip, such as a missing pre-action notice.
In OBEYA v. B.O.I. LTD,[8] the court leans on the legendary case of MADUKOLU v. NKEMDILIM.[9] and settled factors that determine the jurisdiction of court. In the foregoing case, Per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, JCA held that to see if a court is competent, three things need to be considered
i. The Bench: Is the judge properly appointed and qualified? (Composition)
ii. The Subject Matter: Is the court allowed to talk about this specific thing? (e.g., a State High Court shouldn’t be handling Admiralty matters)
iii. The Process: Was the case started the right way? (Conditions precedent, like serving a pre-action notice).
3) POINTS ON WHICH A CHALLENGE TO THE JURISDICTION OF COURT CAN BE BASED
It is pertinent to note that the case of NASIRU v. EFCC & ORS[10] stated the different points a challenge to the jurisdiction of court can be based on. Thus, a challenge to the jurisdiction of a court could be based on varied and diverse points.
For instance:
(a) whether the judge was properly appointed.
(b) whether the subject matter of the claim is within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
(c) whether the claim is within the jurisdiction power of the adjudicating court.
(d) whether the period allowed the court to embark upon the hearing of the case has not expired.
(e) whether the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
(f) whether there are proper parties before the court, etc.
From the above therefore, matters of jurisdiction in our courts can be generally categorized into three components, that is territorial jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction and jurisdiction on persons.
TYPES OF JURIDICTION AND THEIR EFFECTS
In ASHAKA CEMENT v. MELA & ORS[11] distinguishes between types of jurisdictions and states that jurisdiction is a question of law. Thus, the case concedes that we have two types of jurisdictions, namely:
a) Substantive Jurisdiction
b) Procedural Jurisdiction
a) Substantive Jurisdiction: In this regard, the law says the court cannot hear this type of case. No, even if both parties want the court to hear it, the foundation is broken.
b) Procedural Jurisdiction: This deals with the procedure prescribed by law before a suit is commenced. Where the step taken is missed. For instance, serving a writ outside jurisdiction without leave of court sought and obtained. However, if the defendant shows up and starts defending the suit without complaining, they might have waived their right to complain later.
However conversely, no litigant can confer jurisdiction on a court where the constitution or statute says that the court does not have jurisdiction. The rationale behind this is that conditions in a statute for the benefit of a person or a class of people may be waived by the person(s) who are benefiting from it.[12] On the where the right conferred by the constitution or statute involves an element of public policy, i.e of interest to the public, such a right cannot be waived.[13]
4) TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF COURT
Territorial jurisdiction deals with the proper territory/venue where an action can be instituted. The case of AUDU v APC[14] is used to drive home the points made therein. The instance case is about the States. A Gombe State High Court has zero business deciding a matter that happened entirely in Kogi State. The FCT High Court is not a super court for the whole country. It only handles FCT matters.
On the other hand, let’s also consider venue/judicial division, which is about administrative convenience. Filing a suit in the Ikeja Division of Lagos instead of the Lagos Island Division is usually a procedural issue that can be regularized. But then, what happens when a Lagos case is filed in Abuja? That’s a fatal error.
As Justice Amina Augie put it in AUDU v. APC (supra), jurisdiction is the pillar. If it’s gone, the whole building collapses. You can’t even talk about the merits of the case once jurisdiction is dead.
5) WHAT DOES THE COURT CONSIDER IN ASCERTAINING IF IT HAS JURISDICTION?
Nigerian academic discourse often critiques the plaintiff’s claim rule. Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, has noted in various commentaries that while this protects the plaintiff from being non-suited by a dishonest defence at the preliminary stage, it occasionally leads to jurisdictional fraud, where a plaintiff frames a claim to fit a court’s jurisdiction, only for the trial to reveal a completely different underlying dispute.[15]
In the case of ISAH v. ATTAGARA,[16] the court held that if you want to know if a court has jurisdiction, don’t look at the Statement of Defence. The court only looks at the Plaintiff’s Claim (Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim). If the Plaintiff’s story falls within the court’s powers, the court takes the case. The defendant’s version of events doesn’t determine the court’s authority at the start.
IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION AND EFFECT OF PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED WHERE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION
In USENI v. ATTA & ORS,[17] this issue borders on the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit filed by the 1st Respondent. In the foregoing case, the court held that the prominent role of jurisdiction of a Court in the adjudicatory process cannot be over emphasized, for without jurisdiction, a Court is without competence to adjudicate over or entertain any matter before it. It is for this reason that jurisdiction is referred to as the lifeblood of adjudication. Jurisdiction is to adjudication; what oxygen is to human beings. Any proceeding conducted in the absence of jurisdiction amounts to an exercise in futility and any decision reached will be nullified in appeal. This position of the law is further demonstrated in the case of KURMA V. SAUWA,[18]
EFFECT OF PROCEEDINGS IN A MATTER TRANSFERED WITHOUT JURISDICTION
In UDO & ANOR v. AKPAN & ANOR,[19] it was held that, when a Court determines that it has no Jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the appropriate order to make is to strike out the matter. The Court cannot transfer the matter in absence of statutory authority to the contrary. See Sanyaolu v. INEC in (1999) 7 NWIN (NT612) 600, MA (1962) 2 SCNLN 341. Proceedings in the matter transferred without jurisdiction are null and void. Per NWALI SYLVESTER NGWUTA, JCA (Pp 10 – 10 Paras A – C).
HOW JURISDICTION OF COURT IS DETERMINED IN ACTIONS BASED ON CONTRACT
In UNIVERSITY PRESS LTD v. I.K. MARTINS (NIG) LTD,[20] the court held, by the provisions of Order 4 Rule 3, the jurisdiction depends on one of three alternatives namely (a) where the contract was made: or (b) where the contract ought to have been performed; or (c) where the defendant resides. Per EMMANUEL OBIOMA OGWUEGBU, JSC (Pp 27 – 27 Paras A – C).
JURISDICTION OF COURT IN DEFAMATION MATTERS (INCLUSIVE OF ONLINE DEFAMATION CASES)
The shift from physical to digital territory represents what scholars call the De-territorialization of Tort. The court now follows the target test. Academic commentators suggest that Nigeria is moving toward a zippo-style sliding scale,[21] where the level of interactivity of a website determines if a State High Court can grab jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.
It is important to underscore the fact that the case of OMON & ORS v. EKPA,[22] established the fundamental rule that State High Courts have the primary jurisdiction over defamation. Under Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution, State High Courts have broad power to hear civil proceedings involving legal rights. Since defamation is a tort (a civil wrong) involving the violation of a person’s right to their reputation, the State High Court is the proper venue.
Furthermore, the court clarified that unless a matter is specifically reserved for the Federal High Court (like maritime, banking, or intellectual property) or the National Industrial Court (labor matters), the State High Court remains the residual powerhouse to hear such matters.
Significantly, as defamation moved from physical newspapers to the internet, the courts had to decide where the cause of action arises. If someone in Lagos posts a tweet about someone in Enugu, where can the case be filed? In the quest to answer this question, the court looked at international standards (United Kingdom and United States) and adopted a specific territorial test.
In the light of the foregoing, for a State High Court to have jurisdiction over an online post (if the defendant doesn’t live there), the plaintiff must prove the following requirements:
1. The publication was accessed or downloaded in that specific State.
2. The Plaintiff resides or carries on business in that State.
3. The Witnesses also accessed/downloaded the material in that State.
Simply putting info on a passive website doesn’t mean you can be sued in every corner of the world. There must be a purposeful direction of the activity toward that forum. This is the decision of the court as held in DAILY TIMES (NIG) PLC & ANOR.[23]
Furthermore, the case of ADEGUNWA v. ADEPOJU & ORS,[24] reinforced the cause of action in online torts. It states that suits must be filed where:
1. The Defendant resides/carries on business; or
2. The Cause of Action arose.
In the extant case, the court held that in online defamation, the cause of action arises the moment the video or text is viewed/accessed. In other words, this case solidifies the Daily Times v. Arum (supra) precedent. It confirms that publication in the digital age is synonymous with viewing. Therefore, the location of the viewer is what clothes the court in that state with the power to hear the case.
WHAT DETERMINES THE JURISDICTION OF COURT IN CRIMINAL MATTERS?
In FRN v. KANU,[25] the court had this to say: “For the purpose of this appeal, in the determination of whether a Court is vest or conferred with and therefore seized of jurisdiction to adjudicate over a criminal charge or matter brought before it, the material and relevant process to consider is the charge sheet containing the nature and essential details of the offences the accused person was alleged to have committed in order to find out, if, in law, the said offences are or fall within the class or category of offences over which it possesses the statutory Jurisdiction to adjudicate. Transactions forming the subject matter attached to the charge or proof of evidence are not relevant at this stage. This Court in the recent case of Elias v. FRN;[26] paragraph A – C, per Peter-Odili, JSC, restated that: “It needs to be said that in the determination of the jurisdiction of Court in a Criminal matter the first part of call in the quest to explore the status thereof, is the charge sheet before the Court, which contains the offence or offences alleged to have been committed by the accused person.” This principle of law was further buttressed in the case of EZE v. FGN,[27] UGP-NNADI v. FRN.[28] The charge sheet in a criminal case represents the case presented by a plaintiff in the writ of summons and pleadings or Affidavit in support of an originating summons, as the case may be, in civil matters or cases which, by law, are the only material and relevant processes or document/s to be looked into and considered in the determination of the jurisdiction of the Court over a matter or case.
PROPER COURT WITH JURISDICTION WHERE AN ELEMENT OF AN OFFENCE IS STARTED, CONTINUED OR CONCLUDED IN TWO DIFFERENT STATES
This case is a landmark decision regarding territorial jurisdiction in criminal matters, particularly concerning high-profile crimes that span multiple states. It addresses the legal tug-of-war that occurs when a crime is planned in one location (like Abuja) but executed in another (like Anambra).
The case of STATE v OKOYE & ORS,[29] revolves around the attempted assassination of Professor Dora Akunyili (then Director-General of NAFDAC). The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, arguing that because the shooting occurred in Agulu, Anambra State, they should be tried there, not in Abuja.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, establishing that criminal jurisdiction is far more flexible than the defendants claimed. The court held that if several offences are committed as part of the same transaction (in this case, the mission to kill Prof. Akunyili), they can be tried together in any state where an element of that transaction occurred.
The decision of the court is further illustrated as follows:
1) Abuja Connection: The conspiracy and initial planning (Counts 1 & 2) happened in Abuja.
2) Anambra Connection: The actual shooting/execution (Counts 3 & 4) happened in Anambra.
3) The Result: Since the events were linked by a oneness of purpose, the Abuja court could validly hear the entire case.
Interestingly, section 4(2)(b) of the Penal Code is perhaps the most significant part of the judgment. The court interpreted the word enters very broadly:
Voluntary vs. Involuntary: It does not matter if an accused person enters a state voluntarily or is brought there in handcuffs by the police.
The Effect: Once an accused person is physically present within a jurisdiction (Abuja), that court gains the power to try them for an offence, even if the actual crime occurred elsewhere.
Equally also important, the court acknowledged that strictly adhering to the local venue trying a case exactly where the gun was fired isn’t always practical. It introduced a balance of convenience tests. The court considered the safety of the witnesses and asked, will witnesses be too intimidated to speak in the local area? If the accused persons are so influential or feared in their home state (Anambra) that a fair trial is impossible, the case can be moved, thereby making it accessible for the prosecutor and the court.
This judgment prevents criminals from using state boundaries as a get out of jail free card. It prevents defendants from stalling trials by arguing over which state line they were standing on when they committed a crime. It recognizes the reality of organized crime that the brains conspirators are often in the capital city (Abuja), while the hands hit men are in the provinces. The court relied heavily on the NJOVENS & ORS v. STATE,[30] reinforcing that the Penal Code is designed to be comprehension-friendly regarding jurisdiction to ensure offenders don’t escape on technicalities.
JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN MATTERS COMMENCED BY WAY OF ORIGINATING SUMMONS
The case of PDP v. ANYAKORAH & ORS[31] arose within the context of internal party disputes or pre-election matters (common for the PDP). The central legal question here wasn’t just who was right or wrong, but what documents the judge should look at to determine if the court had the power to entertain the suit in the first place. The Court of Appeal reiterated that jurisdiction is determined strictly by the Plaintiff’s claim. The defendant’s defense or counterarguments are irrelevant at this preliminary stage.
It is pertinent to note that most lawsuits are started with a Writ of Summons, which leads to Pleadings (a Statement of Claim). However, some cases usually those involving the interpretation of laws or documents where facts aren’t in dispute start with an Originating Summons. Justice Stephen Jonah Adah, JCA, clarified the search area for the court. The court followed the established precedent of INAKOJU v. ADELEKE.[32] This principle protects the legal process from being derailed early on by a defendant’s version of events. The court assumes, for the sake of determining jurisdiction only, that the facts in the Plaintiff’s affidavit are true. If those facts, as stated, fall within the court’s legal powers, the court has jurisdiction.
Similarly, In an Originating Summons, there are no formal pleadings. The Affidavit in Support serves as evidence and the claim rolled into one. By citing Inakoju, the Court of Appeal emphasized that. You cannot look at the Defendant’s Counter-Affidavit to take away the court’s jurisdiction. The nature of the claim is found within the four corners of Plaintiff’s sworn statements.
JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT
In a bid tofind a lasting solution to the several teething problems which confronted the NIC at the inception, the Nigerian Government,in the year 2006,enactment the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 (NICA).
The steps taken in NICA to resolve the problems associated with the jurisdiction of the court are: One, the NICA repealed Part II of the Trade Disputes Act and re-established NIC as court of superior record. Two, section 11 of the NICA, 2006 by fiat abated the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the State High Court and the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to entertain labour or industrial dispute or any matter related thereto, except where such matters are part-heard.
In spite of above pragmatic steps taken by the Government in identifying the jurisdiction of the NIC, litigants continued to institute their cases in these other Courts instead of the NIC. To completely checkmate this seemingly self-imposed problems on the part of litigants, the Nigeria National Assembly in collaboration with the State House of Assemblies in Nigeria in 2010 amended the Nigeria Constitution through the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Amendment Act, 2010 thusincorporatingthe establishment of the NIC, its composition and power like other superior courts of record into the provisions of the Constitution.(See section 6 (3) (5) (a) to (i) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Constitution, 1999 as amended).Specifically,section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic (Third Alteration) Amended Act, 2010, reaffirmed and reinforced the statusand jurisdictionsof the NIC as contained in the National.
In a bid tofind a lasting solution to the several teething problems which confronted the NIC at the inception, the Nigerian Government,in the year 2006,enactment the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 (NICA).
The steps taken in NICA to resolve the problemsassociated with the jurisdiction of the court are: One, theNICA repealed Part II of the Trade Disputes Act and re-established NIC as court of superior record. Two, section 11 of the NICA, 2006 by fiat abated the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the State High Court and the High
Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to entertain labour or industrial dispute or any matter related thereto, except where such matters are part-heard.
In spite of above pragmatic steps taken by the Government in identifying the jurisdiction of the NIC, litigants continued to institute their cases in these other Courts instead of the NIC. To completely checkmate this seemingly self-imposed problems on the part of litigants, the Nigeria National Assembly in collaboration with the State House of Assemblies in Nigeria in 2010 amended the Nigeria Constitution through the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Amendment Act, 2010 thusincorporatingthe establishment of the NIC, its composition and power like other superior courts of record into the provisions of the Constitution.(See section 6 (3) (5) (a) to (i) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Constitution, 1999 as amended).Specifically,section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic (Third Alteration) Amended Act, 2010, reaffirmed and reinforced the statusand jurisdictionsof the NIC as contained in the National
In a bid tofind a lasting solution to the several teething problems which confronted the NIC at the inception, the Nigerian Government,in the year 2006,enactment the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 (NICA).
The steps taken in NICA to resolve the problemsassociated with the jurisdiction of the court are: One, theNICA repealed Part II of the Trade Disputes Act and re-established NIC as court of superior record. Two, section 11 of the NICA, 2006 by fiat abated the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the State High Court and the High
Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to entertain labour or industrial dispute or any matter related thereto, except where such matters are part-heard.
In spite of above pragmatic steps taken by the Government in identifying the jurisdiction of the NIC, litigants continued to institute their cases in these other Courts instead of the NIC. To completely checkmate this seemingly self-imposed problems on the part of litigants, the Nigeria National Assembly in collaboration with the State House of Assemblies in Nigeria in 2010 amended the Nigeria Constitution through the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Amendment Act, 2010 thusincorporatingthe establishment of the NIC, its composition and power like other superior courts of record into the provisions of the Constitution.(See section 6 (3) (5) (a) to (i) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Constitution, 1999 as amended).Specifically,section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic (Third Alteration) Amended Act, 2010, reaffirmed and reinforced the statusand jurisdictionsof the NIC as contained in the National
In Nigeria, the jurisdiction of the NIC is a product of several enactments. For instance, before the enactment of the NICA, 2006[33] and the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Amendment Act, 2010,[34] various sections of the Trade Dispute Act such as sections 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 vested powers on the Minister of Labour and productivity or any aggrieved party to refer labour disputes to the NIC either for outright adjudication or for the interpretation of arbitral award.[35]
Similarly, by virtue of sections 7 and 8 of the Trade Union Act,[36] where the Registrar of Trade cancels registration of a Trade Union, which registration is in existence on the date specified in the notice of cancellation, any official or member of the Trade Union may within thirty days thereof appeal to the appropriate court to make appropriate order on the purported cancellation. The phrase ‘appropriate court’ in the above sections is defined, in
section 54 of the Trade Union Act,[37] to mean ‘the Industrial Arbitration Panel or the National Industrial Court as the case may be’.
The above was the position in Nigeria before the enactment of the NICA, 2006 and the amendment to the Constitution of Nigeria in 2010. Section 7 of the NICA, 2006[38] conferred on the NIC exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate civil causes and matters relating to labour, industrial trade union and industrial relations and environment and conditions of work, health, safety and welfare of labour and matter incidental thereto amongst others. These provisions in the most inordinate and over bloated manner were reinforced and strengthened by section 254C (1) of the Constitution (Third Alteration) Amendment Act, 2010.[39]
Although, the NIC is still a court of coordinate jurisdiction with other superior courts of record in its sphere of authority like the Federal High Court, the State High Court and the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. However, by virtue of section 254C (1), its jurisdiction is exclusive to it and cannot be concurrently exercised or shared among the other High Courts in the same pedestal of authority or power. Reason for this assertion is found in the definition of the phrase ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ in the Black’s Law Dictionary, where it is defined to mean ‘a court’s power to adjudicate an action or class of actions to the exclusion of all other courts.[40] Premised on the foregoing, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the cases of Attorney General, Oyo State v. National Labour Congress[41]and National Union of Electricity Employer & Other v. Bureau of Public Enterprises[42], which limited the jurisdiction of the NIC and placed it at par with the jurisdictions of the Federal High Court, the State High Court and the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja have ceased to have validity of law.
The combined effects of section 7 of the NICA, 2006 and section 254C (1) of the Constitution (Third Alteration) Amendment Act, 2010 are that the present jurisdiction of NIC is exclusive to it and cannot be shared with other courts. However, a close look at the jurisdiction of the court reveals that it is over ambitious and inimical to the interest of workers which it seeks to protect. For instance, the decision of the court, except where contrary provisions are made, is not subject to review by a higher judicial authority. The purpose of this has technically made the court a court of first and last resort in virtually all its sphere of authority. This position, without mincing word amount to judicial rascality and portend injustice for litigants.
It should be noted that the provisions of section 254C (1) of the Constitution (Third Alteration) Amendment Act, 2010 is an improvement on the jurisdiction of NIC as contained in section 7 of the NICA, 2006. By virtue of the above provisions, the NIC is conferred with original and appellate jurisdictions as far as labour and industrial disputes and matters related thereto are concerned. However, the first fundamental blunder committed by the Nigerian National Assembly is noted in the opening paragraph of section 254C (1) which state that ‘National Industrial Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters. On the face value of this opening paragraph, one may be tempted to think that NIC is conferred with jurisdictions to adjudicate only civil causes and matters connected to or related to labour and industrial disputes. However, a closed look at the main provisions of the section reveal that the NIC has jurisdiction to entertain criminal causes and matters arising from workplace or matters related thereto.
As stated earlier, jurisdiction is life-wire to judicial proceedings, hence, any provision relating to court’s jurisdiction should be free from unambiguity and confusion. It is unethical for the Nigeria Law Makers to lump together the civil and criminal jurisdictions of the NIC without any clear demarcation. For avoidance doubt, the civil jurisdictions of NIC are contained in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), (l) and (m) of section 254C (1). Conversely, the criminal jurisdictions of the National Industrial Court are contained in paragraphs (g) and (i) of the section 254C (1). The best thing to do is to demarcate the two jurisdictions under separate headings.
As at today, the provisions of section 254C (1) of the Constitution (Third Alteration) Amendment Act, 2010 govern the civil and criminal jurisdictions of the NIC on labour and industrial disputes and matters related thereto in Nigeria. Within this context, NIC has original and appellate jurisdictions in all matters listed in section 254 C (1). The criminal matters which NIC can adjudicate include disputes arising from discrimination or sexual harassment at workplace, matter connected with or related to child labour, child abuse, human trafficking or any matter connected therewith. These matters apart from not having direct link to labour or industrial relations are intangible part of the numerous civil jurisdictions conferred on the NIC under section 254C (1).
The provision of section 254C (6), it is observed, is also contrary to the provision of section 254D (1) which conferred on the NIC, as far as its jurisdiction is concerned, the powers of a High Court.[43] Interestingly, section 240 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended conferred on the Court of Appeal exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja , High Court of a State, Sharia Court of Appeal in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and States levels and the Customary Court of Appeal in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and States respectively.[44] However, these laudable provisions are delimited by section 243 (2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended.[45] The Supreme Court in SKYE BANK PLC v. IWU[46] clarified that there is a right of appeal from the NIC to the Court of Appeal on all matters (civil or criminal), though some require leave.
In a bid tofind a lasting solution to the several teething problems which confronted the NIC at the inception, the Nigerian Government,in the year 2006,enactment the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 (NICA).
The steps taken in NICA to resolve the problemsassociated with the jurisdiction of the court are: One, theNICA repealed Part II of the Trade Disputes Act and re-established NIC as court of superior record. Two, section 11 of the NICA, 2006 by fiat abated the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, the State High Court and the High Court of Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to entertain labour or industrial dispute or any matter related thereto, except where such matters are part-heard.
In spite of above pragmatic steps taken by the Government in identifying the jurisdiction of the NIC, litigants continued to institute their cases in these other Courts instead of the NIC. To completely checkmate this seemingly self-imposed problems on the part of litigants, the Nigeria National Assembly in collaboration with the State House of Assemblies in Nigeria in 2010 amended the Nigeria Constitution through the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Amendment Act, 2010 thusincorporatingthe establishment of the NIC, its composition and power like other superior courts of record into the provisions of the Constitution.(See section 6 (3) (5) (a) to (i) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria Constitution, 1999 as amended).Specifically,section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic (Third Alteration)
Amended Act, 2010, reaffirmed and reinforced the statusand jurisdictionsof the NIC as contained in the NationalThe criminal matters which NIC can adjudicate include disputes arising from discrimination or sexual harassment at workplace, matter connected with or related to child labour, child abuse, human trafficking or any matter connected therewith. These matters apart from not having direct link to labour or industrial relations are intangible part of the numerous civil jurisdictions conferred on the NIC under section 254C (1).The provision of section 254C (6), it is observed, is also contrary to the provision of section 254D (1) which conferred on the NIC, as far as its jurisdiction is concerned, the powers of a High Court. Interestingly, section 240 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended conferred on the Court of Appeal exclusive jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court of law in Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Federal High Court, the National Industrial Court, the High Court of the Federal Capital Terri
JURISDICTION OF STATE HIGH COURTS
The law is settled that the jurisdiction of a State High Court is donated to it by Section 272(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which provides as follows:- “Subject to the provision of Section 251 and other provisions of this Constitution, the High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue.” This is the decision of the court as held in ALABI v. THE OLUBADAN IN COUNCIL & ANOR[47]
In other words, The State High Court is the default court. Unless the Constitution specifically gives matters to another court (like the Federal High Court in Section 251 or the National Industrial Court in Section 254C), the State High Court is presumed to have the power to hear it. It is the court of general jurisdiction for any civil proceeding involving legal rights, liabilities, or interests.
i) Jurisdiction of the State High Court Over Land Matters
Basically, Section 39(1) of the Land Use Act provides that if the dispute is about a right of occupancy or interests in land, the State High Court has exclusive original jurisdiction. This often creates a clash when a Federal Agency (like the Federal Housing Authority) is involved. While Section 251 of the Constitution usually sends cases involving Federal Agencies to the Federal High Court, the Supreme Court has consistently held that land matters remain the sacred cows of the State High Court. This is the decision of the court as held in OLAYEMI & ORS v. FHA.[48]
ii) Jurisdiction of the State High Court Over ‘Action in Rem’ and ‘Action in Personam’
It is important to ascertain whether the high court in a state can have jurisdiction over a property in another state. This salient issue drives us to the distinction between actions in rem and actions in personam.
Under action in rem, if you are asking the court to declare who owns a piece of land (Declaration of Title), you must sue in the state where the land is located (lex fori rei sitae).
On the other hand, in action in personam, if you are asking the court to compel a specific person to do something (like honoring a contract or sharing formula regarding land), the court where the defendant resides has jurisdiction, even if the land is in another state.
Furthermore, the court emphasizes that territorial jurisdiction (venue) is a procedural right. If a defendant participates in a trial from start to finish and only objects to the venue in their final written address, they have waived that right. You cannot save an objection to venue as a trump card for the end of the trial. This is the decision of the court as held in ONYIAORAH v. ONYIAORAH[49]
iii) Limitations of the Jurisdiction of the State High Court
The Supreme Court here keeps it simple and strict. While a State High Court has unlimited jurisdiction over subject matters, its geographical reach stops at the state line. A High Court judge in Kano cannot issue orders that operate as a matter of law in Lagos, nor can they try a crime committed entirely in another state. This is the decision of the court as held in USMAN v. STATE[50]
Similarly, in OPEYEMI & ANOR v. SANI,[51] it was held as follows: Reading through the provision of Section 272 of the 1999 Constitution which lays out the jurisdictional limits of the High Court of State and the provisions of the High Court Law of Kano state which states the jurisdictional limits of the High Court of Kano State within the hierarchy of the Courts set up in the State, the High Court of Kano State was not invested with any power to nullify, void or strike proceedings pending before a Sharia Court by way of an application. The only possible way by which a High Court can interfere in a proceeding pending before a Sharia Court is by way of judicial review, and, even here, the circumstances it can do so are very limited.” Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, JCA (Pp 34 – 34 Paras A – D).
iv) Concurrent Jurisdiction of the High Court and Area or Customary Court
By the decision of the court in ODETAYO v. BAMIDELE,[52] the position is now that a State High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with Area or Customary Courts on land in rural areas. The unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court in civil and criminal matters is only subject to the provisions of the constitution. Neither the Land Use Act in its entirety nor any other law for that matter could take away, limit, restrict or detract from unlimited jurisdiction. It is now clear beyond any argument that section 41 of the Land Use Act, 1978 cannot oust the unlimited jurisdiction of the State High Court as provided by section 236 of the Constitution as amended.
WHETHER THE STATE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER MATTERS ARISING FROM THE OPERATIONS OF A COMPANY
The case of IGBUWE v. IGBUWE[53] provides the perfect litmus test for determining when a corporate dispute belongs to the State High Court or the Federal High Court. While section 251(1)(e) of the Constitution grants the Federal High Court exclusive jurisdiction over the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), these cases clarify that not every case involving a company is a CAMA case.
In this case, the parties (directors of a private company) had an agreement where one director would relinquish shares in exchange for company-owned landed property. The appellant tried to argue that because it involved shares and a company, only the Federal High Court could hear it. The court looks at the reliefs claimed, not the status of the parties. Just because a party is a Company or a Director does not mean the Federal High Court must hear it. If a dispute can be resolved without interpreting or applying specific provisions of CAMA (like liquidations, winding up, or shareholder meetings), the State High Court has jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the court held that an agreement to swap shares for property is essentially a simple contract. Since it was an internal arrangement between two people in a private company and didn’t affect the central operation or administration of the company under the law, it belonged to the State High Court. Also, If the case is about a contract or a land transfer that happens to involve a company, it stays in the State High Court.
The case of KADZI INT’L LTD v. KANO TANNERY CO. LTD,[54] provides a sharp contrast to Igbuwe. Here, a loan was granted to a company. Ordinarily, a debt recovery is a simple contract, State High Court has jurisdiction. However, the company was under Receivership. Once a Receiver/Manager is involved, the case moves from a simple debt to an issue of statutory management under CAMA. The trial judge had relied on Section 394 of CAMA (now Section 553 of CAMA 2020) regarding the personal liability of a receiver.[55] The moment the court must apply CAMA to determine liability or the priority of debts, the State High Court shoots itself in the foot if it continues. The court noted that you cannot split the case. If the State High Court lacks jurisdiction over the 1st Defendant (the company in receivership), it cannot maintain the action against the 2nd Defendant (the Receiver) because the cause of action is indivisible.
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL HIGH COURT
The exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is one of the most litigated areas in Nigerian law. Dr. Olumide Obayemi and other scholars often point out the agency trap.[56] They argue that Section 251 should be interpreted based on the nature of the dispute (the subject matter test rather than just the status of the parties (the party test).
The Court of Appeal decision in JUTH & ANOR v. MANYAM,[57] is a vital recent authority for any Nigerian legal practitioner. It serves as a comprehensive refresher on the boundaries of the Federal High Court’s powers, particularly when a Federal Government Agency is a party to a suit. The court re-emphasized that the Federal High Court is a court of enumerated and exclusive jurisdiction. Unlike the State High Court, which has unlimited jurisdiction under Section 272, the Federal High Court can only hear matters specifically listed in Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The word exclusion in that section means that once a matter falls under one of those paragraphs (a through s), the State High Court is completely ousted from hearing it.
Furthermore, the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of F.H.A. v. OYEDEJI,[58] further settled this position of the law. In the extant case, the court held that: “By virtue of section 251(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters relating to the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies. In this case, the Federal Housing Authority in this instance. The same argument can safely be extrapolated for the Federal Housing Authority, in this instance is an agency of the Federal Government. The trial court therefore had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. This position of the court is further illustrated in GABRIEL v. UKPABIO (2022) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1841) 261 C. A[59]
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT AND STATE HIGH COURT
It is important to note that there are instances where the powers of the Federal High Court and the State High Court overlap, thereby giving litigants the luxury of choosing a forum where to institute their matters.
For a long time, there was a misconception that if you were suing a federal agency (like the EFCC, Police, or A.G. Federation) for a human rights breach, you must go to the Federal High Court. This case, following the Supreme Court’s lead in Jack v. University of Agriculture Makurdi, puts that to rest. If the principal relief is the enforcement of a fundamental right (Chapter IV of the Constitution), it does not matter if the Respondent is a Federal or State entity.
Section 46(1) says an applicant may apply to a High Court in that State. This phrase includes both the State High Court and the Federal High Court located within that State. The jurisdiction is determined by where the breach occurred or is likely to occur, not the federal-ness of the respondent. This is the decision of the court as held in SHU’AIBU v. A.G. OF THE FEDERATION.[60]
In the case of CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT BANK v. JOE GOLDAY CO. LTD,[61] the court held: Section 251(1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution which mirrors the Decree 107 mentioned in the case gives the Federal High Court exclusive jurisdiction over banking and fiscal measures. Matters involving the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), foreign exchange, coinage, or letters of credit. In this case, because the plaintiffs also sued regarding shares and directorships (which are governed by CAMA), that portion of the claim fell under the Federal High Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over company matters.
However, there is a famous proviso. The Federal High Court’s exclusive power does not apply to disputes between an individual customer and their bank regarding transactions between them. Also, Simple disputes over account balances, overcharges, or debt recovery between a customer and a bank. You can file these in either the State High Court or the Federal High Court.
ON EXTENT OF JURISDICTION OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OVER ACTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
In the celebrated case of SCC (NIG.) LTD. v. JOSEPH,[62] the apex court held as follows:
By virtue of section 254(C)(1)(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,1999 (as amended), notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272 and anything contained in the 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 to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution as it relates to any employment, labour, industrial relations, trade unionism, employer’s association or any other matter which the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine.
The provision specifically relates to the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court on application or interpretation of Chapter IV of the Constitution. It can be conveniently divided into two parts relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution and as it relates to any employment, labour industrial relations, trade unionism, employer’s association or any other matter which the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine.
The first part means that the National Industrial Court can entertain any suit in which any provision of Chapter IV (sections 33 to 46) of the Constitution will be interpreted or applied. On the second part which reads as it relates to any employment, the operative phrase is as it relates to and the relevant question to ask is whether the claim relates to the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant.
Consequently, section 254(C)(1) of the Constitution confers jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court to the exclusion of other courts of coordinate jurisdiction on disputes calling for interpretation or application of fundamental rights provisions in relation to employment and labour matters.
JURISDICTION OF COURT IN MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS
In the world of Nigerian matrimonial law, where you live (residence) is legally distinct from where you belong (domicile). Under Section 2(2) and (3) of the MCA,[63] the only factor that gives a State High Court the power (jurisdiction) to hear a divorce petition is the domicile of the Petitioner.
Under the Nigeria Private International Law, the concept of a Single Nigerian Domicile is a unique academic focal point,[64] unlike the United States of America or Australia, where one might be domiciled in a specific state (e.g., Texas), for the purpose of the Matrimonial Causes Act, a person is domiciled in Nigeria as a whole. This prevents forum shopping between states and ensures that matrimonial decrees have a uniform national character.
Imagine a Nigerian doctor who has lived in Texas for 10 years but still maintains his family house in Lagos, intends to be buried there, and hasn’t taken US citizenship. Even though he resides in Texas, his domicile remains Nigeria. The case of ALLI v. OKOLOKO,[65] reaffirms that a court must evaluate the Petitioner’s domicile at the time the petition is filed. If the Petitioner is not domiciled in Nigeria, the case is dead on arrival, regardless of where the wedding took place.
Going forward, the issue now becomes, how do we prove domicile? This case of OMOTUNDE v. OMOTUNDE,[66] provides the how-to guide for proving domicile, especially when a party is living abroad.
There are two types of Domiciles:
Origin: Acquired at birth (usually the father’s domicile).
Choice: Where you voluntarily move with the intent to stay forever (animus manendi).
If a Respondent claims the Petitioner is no longer domiciled in Nigeria because they live abroad, the Respondent must prove it. The law views the domicile of origin as very strong. Just because someone has lived in the USA for years doesn’t mean they’ve abandoned Nigeria. To lose a Nigerian domicile of origin, you must show perfect clearness that the person intends to never return to Nigeria.
Having crossed this hurdle, the next step is to ascertain which court has jurisdiction in matrimonial matters. Relying on the case of ALLI v. OKOLOKO (supra), The Federal High Court has zero jurisdiction over matrimonial causes. Even though marriage laws are federal (the Matrimonial Causes Act), the law specifically designates the High Court of a State (or the FCT) as the venue. Filing a divorce in a Federal High Court is a fundamental error that nullifies the entire proceeding.
While the Nigerian law recognizes three types of marriage, Marriage under the Act, customary law marriage and sharia law marriage, it is important to note that the MCA is not a one size fits all law for every Nigerian union. Section 114(6) of the MCA explicitly states the Act does not apply to customary marriages and Islamic (sharia) marriages. To use the State High Court under the MCA, the Petitioner must prove the marriage was monogamous (Statutory marriage/White Wedding/Registry). In ANYAEGBUNAM v. ANYAEGBUNAM,[67] the wife failed to provide evidence of the church wedding ceremony. The Supreme Court held that since she couldn’t prove it was a monogamous marriage, the High Court had no business hearing the case. If it’s a traditional-only wedding, you head to the Customary Court, not the High Court.
Going by the decision of the court in OPUTA v. UMUNNAKWE,[68] the court held:
“Again, by Section 14 of the Customary Court law 2007, a customary Court has jurisdiction on matrimonial causes and matters only between persons married under customary law or arising from or connected with a union contracted under customary law. In the instant appeal, the parties have not married under customary law or connected with a union contracted under customary law. The customary court cannot therefore have jurisdiction over them in matrimonial causes and matters. This is clear from the decision of OKWUEZE Vs. OKWUEZE (SUPRA), which is still good law as the decision on it, was predicated upon the law at the time and which was not changed by the enactment of the customary Court law 2007. It held that “Where there is no valid marriage, the question of determining the custody of children cannot come under the jurisdiction of the customary court since the applicable law will be the Infants Law Cap 49 Laws of Ondo State, which outs the jurisdiction of the customary court.”
Apart from the Customary Court Act law which ousts the jurisdiction of a customary Court where the parties are not married, which is a general law, there is a specific law which now specifically vests jurisdiction in another Court so that there is no lacuna. This law is the Child Right Act 2003.[69]
By section 68 of this Act, it is the family Court established under section 153 of the Act, that has jurisdiction where the parties are not married at the time of the birth of the child, to (a) order a father, where he applied, to have parental responsibility for the child; (b) order the mother, where she applied, to have parental responsibility for the child, or (c) for both father and mother to agree to have parental responsibility for the child.
To nail the coffin, Section 162 of the Child Right Act 2003, states clearly that “No other Court except the family Court, shall exercise jurisdiction in any matter relating to the children as specified in this Act,” I do not see any conflict between the Customary Court law 2007 and the Child Right Act 2003.
Even if there is, the Child Right Act 2003 being a specific law on the subject, that is the law applicable to the subject matter of the Suit – UNONGO Vs. AKUME[70] and F.M.B.N Vs. OLLOH.[71] I hold that it is the Family Court that has jurisdiction in this case.” Per ABUBAKAR DATTI YAHAYA, JCA (Pp 14 – 16 Paras D – D)
ii) Jurisdiction of court in Matrimonial Proceedings Where One of the Parties Is Outside Nigeria and the Marriage was not Celebrated in Nigeria
In the case of ALLI v. OKOLOKO,[72] the Court of Appeal held thus: “In this appeal, both the Appellant and Respondent are Nigerians, but the Appellant and the children of the marriage are resident in United States of America. By virtue of Section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act only the issue of domicile of the Petitioner (i.e. Respondent) ought to be considered by the trial Court when determining the issue of whether it has the Jurisdiction to entertain the Petition.
In situations where a party or parties have arrived at the decision to dissolve their marriage, the Courts are usually cautious, will not allow oppressive proceedings or waste time on irrelevant things. Interest of Justice and reasonableness would always play out. The learned senior Counsel for the Appellant contended that because the Appellant who is a Nigerian is domiciled in United States of America that the trial Court lacked the Jurisdiction to entertain the Petition. I do not agree with that submission because insofar as determining the Jurisdiction of the trial Court is concerned it is the domicile of the Respondent that is relevant.
I have stated earlier that both parties are Nigerians even their children are Nigerians, though the Appellant and the children are for now domiciled in the United States of America but in my view, that has nothing to do with the Jurisdiction of the trial Court when Section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act is applied. It has been contended that the High Court in Nigeria lack Jurisdiction to entertain dissolution of a marriage that was not celebrated in Nigeria or under the Marriage Act. But Order V Rule 27(7) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules recognizes marriages contracted in Nigeria and elsewhere.
And by virtue of Section 3(1) c of the Matrimonial Causes Act a marriage that complied with the requirements of the law of the place where the marriage took place and is a valid marriage under the laws of that place will be regarded as a valid marriage in Nigeria and same can be dissolved by a Nigerian Court insofar as the Petitioner is domiciled in Nigeria.” Per JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, JCA (Pp 32 – 34 Paras F – E).
CONCLUSION
Jurisdiction remains the most formidable gatekeeper in the Nigeria in the Nigerian courts. As demonstrated throughout this article, it is a concept that refuses to be static; it has evolved from the rigid territorial boundaries of the physical world to the fluid, borderless complexities of the digital age. Lifeblood analogy remains important, once a court’s jurisdiction is drained, the entire adjudicatory process becomes a cadaver, regardless of how just the underlying cause may be. The Nigerian judiciary has made significant strides in clarifying the conflict between the State, National and Federal High Courts. However, the persistence of jurisdictional challenges at the Supreme Court suggests that lawyers still struggle with the threshold question of where to sue or institute their actions. Conclusively, the sanctity of judicial time and the resources of litigants depend on a jurisdiction-first approach, ensuring that the jurisdiction of court is in order before the engine of litigation is ignited.
RECOMMENDATIONS
To further refine the Nigerian legal terrain and reduce the frequency of jurisdictional fatalities, the following recommendations are proposed:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Legislation
Table of Cases
Books
[1] STANDARD ALLIANCE INS CO. LTD v. F.C.M.B LTD (2025) 11 NWLR (PT. 1998) 133 S.C.
[2] SUBURBAN BROADBAND LTD NIG v. INTELSAT GLOBAL SALES & MARKETING LTD (2016) LPELR-40334 (CA).
[3] Bryan A Garner (ed), Black’s Law Dictionary (11th edn, Thomas Reuters 2019)
[4] Hon. Justice Niki Tobi, Sources of Nigerian Law (MIJ Professional Publishers 1996).
[5] Afe Babalola, Enforcement of Judgments (Inter Printers Limited 2003) 124.
[6] (2025) LPELR-81724 (SC)
[7] Fidelis Nwadialo, Civil Procedure in Nigeria (2nd edn, University of Lagos Press 2000) 45.
[8] (2020) LPELR-50700 (CA).
[9] (1962) ALL NLR 581.
[10] (2002) LPELR-56976 (CA).
[11] (2020) LPELR-51393 (CA).
[12] Adegoke Motors Ltd v Adesanya (1989) 3 nwlr (Pt. 109) 255 (CA).
[13] Ariori v Elemo (1983) 14 NSCC 1.
[14] (2019) lpelr-48134(sc).
[15] Itse Sagay, Nigerian Law of Contract (Sweet & Maxwell 1985).
[16] (2023) lpelr-60367 (ca).
[17] (2023) LPELR-59880 (SC)
[18] (2019) 3 NWLR (PT. 1659) 247 (CA).
[19] (2009) LPELR-8774 (CA).
[20] (2000) LPELR-3421 (SC).
[21] Zippo Manufacturing Co v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc 952 F Supp 1119.
[22] (2019) LPELR-47978 (CA).
[23] (2021) LPELR-56893 (CA).
[24] (2024) LPELR-61827 (CA)
[25] (2023) LPELR-79929 (SC).
[26] (2021) 16 NWLR (PT. 1800) 495 (CA).
[27] (1987) 1 NWLR (PT. 51) 506
[28] (2018) NWLR (PT. 1620) 29 (CA).
[29] (2007) LPELR-8298 (CA).
[30] (1973) LPELR-2042 (SC).
[31] (2021) LPELR-56456(CA).
[32] (2007) 4 NWLR (PT. 1025) 47 C.A.
[33] National Industrial Act 2006 (NICA).
[34] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Amendment Act 2010.
[35] Trade Disputes Act, ss 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20.
[36] Trade Unions Act, ss 7 and 8.
[37] ibid s 54.
[38] National Industrial Court Act 2006, s. 7.
[39] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 254C (1).
[40] Garner (n 3).
[41] (2003) 8 NWLR (PT. 822) 222 (CA).
[42] (2010) 7 NWLR (PT. 194) 538 (CA).
[43] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 254D (1).
[44] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 240.
[45] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 243 (2) and (3).
[46] (2017) 16 NWLR (pt. 1590) 24 (SC).
[47] (2021) LPELR-56294 (CA).
[48] (2022) LPELR-57579 (SC).
[49] (2019) LPELR-47092 (CA).
[50] (2014) LPELR-22879 (SC).
[51] (2015) LPELR-40392 (CA).
[52] (2007) LPELR-2211 (SC).
[53] (2023) LPELR-60748 (CA).
[54] (2003) LPELR-5782 (CA).
[55] Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, s 18(1), but now s 553.
[56] Olumide K. Obayemi, ‘The Jurisdictional Conundrum of the Federal High Court of Nigeria: A Review of Section 251(1) of the 1999 Constitution’ (2012) (5)(1) Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy 142.
[57] (2024) LPELR-62078 (CA).
[58] (2025) 19 NWLR (PT. 2021) 473 SC.
[59] (2022) 11 NWLR (PT. 1841) 261 (CA).
[60] (2023) LPELR-61565 (CA).
[61] (2000) LPELR-6813 (CA).
[62] (2026) 1 NWLR (PT. 2025) 227 S.C.
[63] Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap M7, LFN 2004, s 2(2)-(3).
[64] I.O. Agbede, Themes on Conflict of Laws (Shaneson 1989) 102; see also section 2(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap M7, LFN 2004.
[65] (2023) LPELR-60700 (CA).
[66] (2000) LPELR-10194 (CA).
[67] (1973) LPELR-507 (SC).
[68] (2018) LPELR-46762 (CA).
[69] Child Rights Act 2003.
[70] (2004) VOL. II WRN 42.
[71] (2002) 9 NWLR (PT. 773) 457 (CA).
[72] (2023) LPELR-60700 (CA).
CASE TITLE: UBN v. EZIKPE & ANOR (2026) LPELR-83353 (SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 6TH MARCH, 2026…
CASE TITLE: STATE v. EFEREBO (2026) LPELR-83362(SC) JUDGMENT DATE: 6TH MARCH, 2026 PRACTICE AREA: CRIMINAL LAW…
CASE TITLE: OMOJAFOR v. OMOJAFOR (2026) LPELR-83400(CA) JUDGMENT DATE: 23RD MARCH, 2026 PRACTICE AREA: MATRIMONIAL…
CASE TITLE: VOICEWEB INT'L LTD. V. EMERGING MARKETS TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD. & ORS LPELR-81770(CA) JUDGMENT…
The Ondo State Government has announced a historic initiative to digitise all laws of Ondo…
INTRODUCTION The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) released the "Guidelines for the Operations of Agent…
