#ARRIVAL OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION# KNOW THE LAW(1st Edition): MEANING OF JURISDICTION OF A LAW COURT.

in #law6 years ago

PicsArt_05-11-03.56.39.png
The Legal Profession seems to be at the sidelines thus far in the steemit blockchain, and it's of paramount importance that We (Law students and Lawyers) rise up to this clarion call and educate the community on some of the Legal Principles that exist in the legal world.

I believe that this will create value and enlighten steemians on the rudiments and fundamentals of the law. We hope to achieve this goal via the @legalogue community, and just like @surpassinggoogle will say "we indeed need some strength and support."

So, on my 1st Edition of #KNOW_THE_LAW, I will be talking about the meaning of Jurisdiction.

WHAT'S JURISDICTION ALL ABOUT

The issue of Jurisdiction of a court to entertain a matter or case is of fundamental importance in the Legal profession. It's so basic that anytime such subject is brought up by a party in the course of any proceeding, the Court must have to halt or stop the ongoing trial pending when it's jurisdiction has been determined. Simply put it, it's the statutory power conferred on the court to entertain a suit, and once such authority is found wanting, the Court cannot sit on that matter.

Judicially, the word jurisdiction has been held to mean the authority the court has to decide matters before it or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision.

"The word jurisdiction means the authority which a court has to decide matters before it or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision." as well established in the celebrated case of Madukolu v.Nkemdilim [1].

THE SOURCE OF JURISDICTION

The power of a Court to entertain a suit or sit over a proceeding cannot be assumed, it emanates from the Law.
The Jurisdiction of a court of law is a very hard matter of law which is donated by the Constitution and the enabling statute. A court cannot confer or vest in itself jurisdiction not specifically conferred on it by a statute or the constitution.

ONNOGHEN J.S.C in the case of Gafar v. Govt. Kwara State [2] puts this way:

"It is settled law that courts are creatures of statute based on the constitution with their jurisdiction stated or prescribed therein. That being the case, it is obvious that no court assumes jurisdiction except it is statutorily prescribed as jurisdiction cannot be implied nor can it be conferred by agreement of parties."

It is settled from the dictum of learned supreme court jurist that no court assumes jurisdiction except it is statutorily prescribed and that jurisdiction cannot be implied nor can it be conferred by agreement of parties.

images.jpeg

THE IMPORTANCE AND RELEVANCE OF JURISDICTION

The importance of jurisdiction in the Legal profession cannot be overemphasized, as it's the blood that pumps life into the proceeding, and without it, the Court is merely romancing the stone.

Jurisdiction is fundamental to adjudication as it is the special cord of a court of law, any decision taken by a court without jurisdiction is incompetent, and is subject to being nullified on appeal.

Once a court lacks jurisdiction, a party cannot use any statutory provision or common law principle to impose it because absence of jurisdiction is irreparable in law. The matter ends there and the only procedural duty of the court is to strike it out.

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Umannah v. Obong Victor Attah [3], per Tobi JSC held as follows:

“Where the issue of jurisdiction is raised in a matter, once the court determines that it has no jurisdiction in the suit, it need not proceed further to consider any other issue since there is no longer the jurisdiction for doing so. It follows therefore that it is only after that, that it can proceed to consider other issues raised by the party invoking its jurisdiction.

17473646-judge-vector.jpg

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court has stated the time-honoured principle of jurisdiction laid down in the celebrated case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim [1] thus:

The law is indeed trite that a court is only competent to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any matter where-

  1. It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualification of the members and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other.

  2. The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction.

  3. The case comes by due process of the law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.

images (2).jpeg

WHEN CAN A PARTY RAISE AN OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time in a proceeding and whenever raised, it is to be decided when the point or issue is raised. This was well stated in the case of Daggash v. Bulama [4]

The issue of jurisdiction once raised must be determined first. The Supreme Court in Drexel Energy and Natural Resources Ltd. v. Trans International Bank Ltd. [5] per Ogbuagu JSC, made an instructive pronouncement that:

“Once the issue of jurisdiction is raised in any court the determination of that issue cannot and should not and ought not be deferred until the conclusion of the substantive suit.”

The law is trite that jurisdiction is a threshold issue and that once an objection is based on the issue of jurisdiction, it must be resolved first before further steps are and can be taken in the proceedings.

Accordingly, in FRIN vs. Gold [6] per Mukhtar, JSC, held thus:

“Jurisdiction of court is very fundamental and lack of jurisdiction robs a court of the competence to hear and decide a matter. In other words, once a court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter, its adjudication of the matter will be declared a nullity by an appellate court.”

Also, in Cotecna International Ltd vs. Ivory Merchant Bank Ltd. [7], Mohammed, JSC, stated the law thus:

“The validity velnon of the jurisdiction of the court touches on the competence of the court to hear and determine a cause or matter before it, and is fundamental to its exercise of jurisdiction and of adjudication and determination of the cause before it. In this respect, the existence or absence of jurisdiction in the court goes to the root of the matter and sustains or nullifies the decision of the court in respect of the relevant subject matter.”

CAN RULES OF COURT DICTATE WHEN AND HOW TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION:

The law has been settled beyond contention that the rules of court supersedes not the authority of statutory provisions. The Courts in various pronouncements have lend credence to this position.

The rules of court cannot override statutory provisions: In Societe Bics A. Compagnie Moulages & Anor v. Charzin Ind. Ltd. [8], per Muhammad JCA (as he then was)

“In the instant case, Appellants has not filed their Statement of Defence. In spite of the fact that the Appellants had chosen to raised their preliminary objection in a manner unknown to law, it must be appreciated that had it been manifest from Respondent’s Writ and claim that the action against the Appellants was fundamentally defective and untenable, it would have been proper for the Court to dismiss the action without waiting for the Appellants to file their pleadings. It has been held that where the point of law raised is founded on lack of jurisdiction, it is possible to apply for dismissal of the action even before the fulfilment of the conditions stipulated by the rules of Court for raising the objection. The Court falls back, at such moments, to its inherent jurisdiction which persists in spite of the rules of Court. This must be so because the Court could only assume jurisdiction, anyway, if same had existed."

It is now firmly settled that issue of jurisdiction or competence of a court to entertain or deal with a matter before it, is very fundamental. It is a point of law and therefore, a rule of court, cannot dictate when and how, such point of law, can be raised. Being fundamental and threshold issue of jurisdiction, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in any court. An Appellant Court can even raise it suo motu. I need emphasize as it is also settled that mandatory Rules of Court, are not as sacrosanct as mandatory statutory provisions and therefore, a rule of court, cannot override a statutory provision of the law.

GROUND FOR RAISING OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION

In as much as the issue of jurisdiction is a fundamental one, there are grounds one can raise it in court. The major grounds for raising an objection to jurisdiction are:

a. Mode of commencement of an action
b. Lack or improper service
c. Lack of reasonable cause of action
d. Locus standi
e. Limitation of action
f. Abuse of court process
g. Improper Parties to the suit.
h. Venue or place of institution of action
i. Ouster clause in statute

judge-in-court.jpg

WHO IS THE PROPER PARTY TO RAISE OBJECTION TO JURISDICTION DURING A SUIT?

Sometimes, one may wanna inquire to know who is really the proper party to strike up the issue of jurisdiction is a court, it's also pertinent I delve into that.

On the question whether the duty to raise absence of Jurisdiction in a Court is placed upon a particular party, the Supreme Court in Omokhafe v. Elugbe. [9], per Katsina-Alu, JSC held:

“I must stress here that the duty to raise absence of jurisdiction in a court to hear a case is not placed upon a particular party, or defendants in a proceeding. It is of course from experience that it is always the defendant who raises it. The court itself can and often raises the question."

IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY OF THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION BEING WAIVED?

The courts have made various pronouncements in this particular issue as well. The position of the law have always been that Jurisdiction cannot be waived.

In S.P.D.C.N. Ltd. v. Esowe (supra) at p. 90, paras. A-B the court held thus:

“The issue of jurisdiction cannot be waived by the parties or by the court. The competence of a court to adjudicate on matter is a legal and constitutional prerequisite. Once the court is held for any reason to lack jurisdiction, no matter how well the proceedings are conducted, they are void.”

It is well settled that, where there is an objection to jurisdiction of an inferior court a party who consents to the exercise of jurisdiction is not thereby estopped from afterward raising the objection since the jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by estoppel.

In Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited v. Monokpo [10], Tobi, JSC graphically puts it thus:

“Jurisdiction being the forerunner of judicial process, cannot by acquiescence, collusion , compromise, or as in this case, waiver, confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks it. Parties do not have the legal right to donate jurisdiction on a court that lacks it. Non - compliance with the rules which affect the very foundation, or props of the case, cannot be treated by the court as an irregularity but as a nullifying the entire proceedings.

Once the non-compliance affects the substance of the matter to the extent that the merits of the case are ruined, then it is impossible to salvage the proceedings in favour of the party in blunder, who in this appeal are the respondents, no amount of waiver by the party can be of any assistance to the adverse party. The defence of waiver lacks merit and so I do hold.”

Citations:

  1. (1962) 2 SC NLR 341.
  2. SC. 71/2002.
  3. CA/A/166/2004.
  4. (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt. 892)
  5. (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 388 S.C
  6. (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt.1044) 1 at 18-19 paras H-D the S.C
  7. (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt.985) 275 at 297 paras C-E
  8. (2003-2007) 5 L.P.L.R 203 at 226, paras. A-F
  9. ( 2004) 11-12 SC 60 at 65
  10. (2004) 9 WRN at 84-85, paras. 35-25

Image source: google

IMG-20180411-WA0006.jpg

hex0.gif

Sort:  

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.36
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70446.49
ETH 3571.68
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.73