judiciary
Jurisdiction is the fabric and soul of adjudication, it can be
described as the “Fons et Origo” of adjudication, the
totality of a judicial process raises and falls on the courts
jurisdictional competence to entertain the matter, as the lack of
jurisdiction will render the entire judicial process a nullity
no-matter how well conducted the process was. The resultant effect
is that, the entire process will fall like the biblical walls of
Jerico.
Defining Jurisdiction, Justice Abiru of the
Court of Appeal in his lead judgment in Ibrahmin v
Jacob & Ors (2017) LPELR-43366 (CA) defined
jurisdiction to mean: “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” reacting
on the sacred importance of jurisdictional competence of a court to
hear a matter, the Supreme Court in A.G Federation V
A.G Anambra State 2017 stated thus: ”the issue of
jurisdiction of a court to try a suit is a fundamental and
threshold one, this is so because if a court has no jurisdiction to
determine the subject matter of the suit or that the parties are
not subject to the jurisdiction that court, the proceedings thereof
are and remain a nullity, however well conducted and the judgment
brilliantly written and eloquently delivered. It behooves every
court including the Apex Court to carefully examine the issues in
the statement of claim, to determine whether the issues sought to
be ventilated before it are within its jurisdictional competence.
In essence, jurisdiction is a radical and prerequisite for
adjudication”.
What then defines a Court jurisdiction?
The determinates of a court jurisdiction were laid down
succinctly in the Supreme Court case of Madukulu V
Nkemdilim 1962 which today stands as the Locus Classicus on
jurisdictional competence, in that case Justice
Bairamian stated thus: a court is competent when:
“1. It is properly constituted as regards numbers and
qualification of the members of the bench, and no member is
disqualified for one reason or the another; and
- 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; and - The case comes before the court initiated by due process of
law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the
exercise of jurisdiction.”
Any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings are a
nullity however well adjudicated and decided. The defect is
extrinsic to the adjudication.
It is important to know that these essential elements are
cumulative and the absence of one will render the entire judicial
process a nullity, all the items listed above must be present to
clothe a Court with the necessary jurisdictional competence to
adjudicate on a matter.
Courts are basically created by statutes, each court is
established by an Act/Law and also the constitution as the case
maybe. The enabling statute, also clothes the courts with
jurisdiction to hear certain matters, therefore it can be stated
here, that the jurisdictional competence of a court is vested in
its enabling law. In line with this position, section 251(a-r) of
the 1999 constitution, clothed the Federal high Court with
jurisdiction to hear matters enumerated in the above section. The
effect of this is the Federal High Court by this very section
becomes a court of enumerated jurisdiction and cannot hear matters
aside the ones listed in section 251. The problem arising from this
section however, is that almost all areas with respect to Federal
Agencies and Agents of the Federal government seem covered by this
section, hence the presumption and conclusion given by lawyers, to
the effect that section 251 of the constitution had covered
the field with respect to where to sue for actions against
Agents and Agencies of the Federal Government, as the answer widely
given is The Federal High Court.
It was on this ground that the case of Ibrahim V Jacob &
Ors(Supra) was appealed to the court of Appeal for
determination, the contention of the appellant was that being a
Federal Agent and Agencies, the 2nd to 4th
respondents in this case, that is; 2nd Respondent;
Presidential implementation committee, on Federal Government landed
properties, 3rd Respondent; Federal ministry of Works
and Housing, 4th Respondent; Attorney General of the
Federation. Falls within the jurisdictional competence of the
Federal High Court, to this end the decision reached by the Borno
State High Court be set aside and declared a nullity for lack of
jurisdiction.
It is settled law that jurisdiction been a vital matter to
adjudication, can be raised at any time and even for the first time
on appeal, once raised, must be settled before the court can hear
the substantive matter before it. And parties cannot on their own
accord by consent confer jurisdiction on a court. Jurisdiction in
this case was the first ground for the appeal.
At arriving at their decision, the court cited the leading and
time honored principle as enumerated in Madukulu V
Nkemdilim, which was reiterated in the Supreme Court case of
A. G Anambra State V Uba (2005) ALL FWLR (pt 277) 909.
The case as decided by the Borno State High Court and appealed
against here, is one that seeks a declaration of title to Land and
Award of damages for trespass if possible against the respondents,
in its entirety it was a land case, which falls within the
jurisdictional competence of the state high court. Furthermore
among the items listed in Section 251 Land matters was not one, The
general presumption that cases against Agents and Agencies of the
Federal Government must commenced at the Federal High Court took
center stage and served as the first and most important ground for
the appeal.
Justice Abiru observed thus: “the court does not look at the
faces, designation or duties of the parties in a suit to determine
whether or not it has jurisdiction”. Furthermore “where
the course of action of a plaintiff does not fit into one of the
enumerated areas of jurisdiction of the federal high court as
stated in section 251(1) of the constitution, the fact that one of
the parties to the action is the federal government or an agency of
the federal government is irrelevant and it cannot give the federal
high court jurisdiction over the subject matter”. The position
in Ahmed V Ahmed (2013) 15 NWLR pt (1317)
274 that “the writ of summons and elaborated in the statement
of claim or any other originating process determines the
jurisdiction of the court”, comes handy here too.
The subject matter as succinctly stated by Justice
Bairaman in Madukulu V Nkemdilim
is express and all embracing, the mere fact that the case is one
against an agent of the Federal Government or an Agency, does not
suo moto withdraw jurisdiction from the State High Court,
except where the subject matter is not one that is within the
jurisdictional competence of the State High Court. Where the
subject matter is one provided for by section 251 of the
constitution or any other statute, withholding from the state high
court jurisdiction to hear the matter, any exercise taken by the
State High Court will be adjudged a nullity, no matter how well
conducted and the judgment eloquently delivered. See
A.G Federation V A.G Anambra state
Supra.
Conclusion
Cases against Agents and agencies of the federal government can
be instituted at the High Court of a State, provided it is one
where the subject matter falls within the jurisdictional competence
of the state high court, to presume otherwise is no longer legally
correct, and also without moral foundation. To aid my academic
sincerity is the 2017 decided case of Ibrahim V Jacob &
Ors, which stands correctly as the authority for this
position of the law.
Tamunotonye Alapu Babbo, Faculty of Law
University of Calabar, Calabar.08165139629Email:
Tonyetheadvocate@gmail.com
Like this:
Like Loading…