Determinants Of Court’s Competency: Decisive Or Indecisive. By Alkasim Abubakar

Jurisdiction is a life elixir of a case and court’s judgment;
the lifeline and the only pipeline that supplies blood to any
adjudication. Because without Jurisdiction notwithstanding the
effectiveness of the all processes and the judgments held so far,
are deem to be nothing(nullity ab initio) but expend of court’s
energy and precious time.

As held by Supreme Court in Oloho vs. Akereja[1] per Obaseki,
JSC, Thus: “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 matter or claim or suit,
it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the
hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim. It is
therefore an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue of jurisdiction
or competence determine before embarking on the hearing and
determination of the substantive matter.” the importance and impact
of jurisdiction cannot be over emphasized. This article is aim to
study meaning and nature of court’s jurisdiction, it’s sources and
the determinants of court’s competency to the extent of their
decisiveness or otherwise.

MEANING AND NATURE OF COURT COMPETENCY/
JURISDICTION
In the case of Egharevba v. Eribo[2], the Supreme Court succinctly
stated the meaning and fundamental nature of jurisdiction of Court
in the following words: Jurisdiction is a term of comprehensive
import embracing every kind of judicial action. It is the power of
a 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 also defines the power
of the Court to inquire into facts, apply the law, make decisions
and declare judgments. It is the legal right by which judges
exercise their authority.

Jurisdiction of a court is basically assumes on two grounds,
i.e. judicial (administrative) jurisdiction and territorial
(geographical) jurisdiction. “There is a world of distinction
between jurisdiction as it relates to the territorial, geographical
jurisdiction of a Court and jurisdiction in relation to the
judicial division within which to commence an action. The
distinction between venue, as an aspect of jurisdiction which could
be administrative or geographical, in which a suit may be
heard, is often provided in the rules of Court of various States of
the Federation. Per Muhammad, J.S.C in DAIRO V. UNION BANK &
ANOR[3]. It is trite that where court lack one of the two basic
grounds of it’s jurisdiction cannot assume competency. See SHAMANG
v. SHAMANG[4]. By way of little expansion, a court cannot go on a
matter beyond its’ administrative jurisdiction or territorial
jurisdiction. It is pertinent to state that even if the parties
want to ‘Shop Forum’, they cannot go beyond the territorial
jurisdiction where the matter arises. As rightly held per Eko JSC
in MAILANTARKI V. TANGO[5] “Forum shopping denotes a rather
reprehensible practice of choosing the most ‘favourable territorial
jurisdiction’ or Court in which a matter or cause may be
‘entertained and adjudicated upon’.” (emphasis mine)

SOURCES OF COURT’s JURISDICTION
“Under the Nigerian legal system, Court’s jurisdiction are usually
derived from either the Constitution or the statutes that
established them. Also, it is not out of place for the legislature
to enact some other laws which gives additional jurisdiction to the
Court, on certain specified subject matters”[6]. On this basis
chapter vii of CFRN 1999 AS AMENDED have provided the jurisdiction
of all courts and tribunals within the sections of their
establishments,[7]. Likewise many acts of NASS that established
courts make provisions for their Jurisdictions. For Example see:
S.14 of Federal Capital Territory Customary Court Act and S.7
Federal High Court
Act.

From the foregoing, court’s jurisdictions are usually derived
from the Law that established them either Constitution, Act of NASS
or any other law that may be enacted by States’ House of Assembly
across the federation.

WHEN WILL A COURT BE SAID TO BE COMPETENT?
In the “locus classicus” case of: Madukolu v. Nkemdilim[8] The
Federal Supreme Court(as it was then called) per Bairamian JSC had
laid a basic elements of determining court’s Competency, that a
Court is competent when:

1. It is properly considered as regards numbers and
qualifications of the members of the bench and no member is
qualified for one reason of another and
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; and
3. The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law
and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of
jurisdiction.

In Ohakim v. Agbaso[9] the Supreme Court restated the purport of
the above set out determinants of jurisdiction of Court, per
Muhammad, JSC, as follows: In addition, all law Courts or
tribunals, while exercising their powers must be guided by the
general determinants of jurisdiction;
(a) The statute establishing the Courts/Tribunal.
(b) The subject-matter of litigation.
(c) The litigating parties.
(d) The procedure by which the case is initiated.
(e) Proper service of process.
(f) Territory where the cause of action arose or, as the case may
be, where
the defendant resides.
(g) Composition of the Court/Tribunal.

It is trite that if any of the above is lacking, then the
subject-matter, the parties or the composition of the
Court/Tribunal is defective which may lead to a nullity.

FINAL ANALYSIS:
The determinants of court’s competency are very decisive; defined,
definitive. clear, and pure as vividly clarified by the
constitution, precedents and other statutes. Nonetheless, many
cases are pending before our courts today suffering from lack of
courts’ competency and in turn facing the consequency of strike
out. More often than not the issue of court’s competency is mostly
the first issue at the first instance as the life of the case. The
writer’s humble submission her is that; the legal maxim remain ‘ibi
just ibi remedium’ so if legal practitioners and other stake
holders in the tample of justice would be more curious and
conscious on the matter of courts’ competency for the reliefs seek
by their clients and the grievances they want to ventilate through
courts (as the last hope of a common man), many cases that are
trike out in trial courts and appellate courts on the ground of
incompetency would drastically and remarkably reduced.

For justice to be delivered to all’ courts competencies most be
putted in concern. As one learned mind Elechi JCA opined in the
case of UBA V. DAVANDY[10] “…there is no justice in exercising
jurisdiction where there is none, it is injustice to the law, to
the court and to the parties to do so.

Alkasim Abubakar (A.A.M.G) Student of Law, ABU, Zaria- Kaduna
state. 08033131653. Alkasima198@gmail.com
20/4/2019

AUTHORITIES;
[1](1988) 3 NWLR pt 84 page 508
[2](2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1199) p. 41
[3](2007) LPELR-913(SC)
[4](2018) LPELR-44365(CA
[5](2017) LPELR-42467(SC)
[6]PER AREDOLA JCA GOV. OF IMO STATE & ANOR v. IWUNZE (2018)
LPELR-44005(CA)
[7]See Sections 223&235, 239&240, 251, 257, 262, 267, 273,
277, 283,285 of
CFRN and S. 6(254c) of CFRN (Third Alteration Act) 2010.
[8] (1962)2 SCNLR 341./(1962)LPELR-24023(SC)./1962 1ALL NRL (pt4)
p.587.
[9] (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) p. 172 at pgs. 243 – 244,
[10](2015)LPELR-25769(AC)