- : Ms Word, Ms Word Format
- : 70 Pages
- : ₦5000
- : 1-5 Chapters
- Click to DOWNLOAD Materials
AN APPRAISAL OF CONTROL AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN NIGERIA.
ABSTRACT
Jurisdiction is defined as the power of a court or judge to entertain an action, petition or other proceeding. Jurisdiction is like the foundation upon which legal proceeding is built. A court is qualified to handle any case if it has jurisdiction over the case and jurisdiction is conferred by subject matter, constitution qualification of the members of the bench and duly initiation of case.
Nigeria judiciary is made up of different grades of courts ranging from Customary Courts, Magistrate Courts, Area Courts, Federal High Courts, Sharia Courts of Appeal, High Court and Supreme Courts. Each of the Court has extent of its adjudication, area of operation and limitations as regards to the entertainment of cases.
This paper would be divided into five chapters. Chapter one will deal with general introduction, background of the study, the aim and objective of the study.
Chapter two will expose the reasons for jurisdiction, how jurisdiction is determined and consequences of having or not having jurisdictions by a court.
Chapter three will deal with the controversies attendant in the interpretation of section 251 of 1999 constitution as amended and whether jurisdiction could be waived when a party submits to jurisdiction.
Chapter four will examine jurisdiction as a tool for the delay of justice while chapter five will contain the summary, findings / observation.
Therefore, this paper focuses on the Jurisdiction the Basis for the Administration of Justice in Nigeria; An appraisal, the problems caused or posed by jurisdiction in Nigeria legal system, recommendation, suggestions and conclusion will form the concluding part of this paper.
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY.
Jurisdiction is defined as the power held by an officer or official body, especially a court of law, and also the right to use such power with its limitations.[1] In other words, jurisdiction is the life wire, the bedrock and foundation of all judicial and even quasi-judicial proceedings. In legal parlance; jurisdiction is the authority[2] which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before, or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. Therefore, any decision reached without jurisdiction by a court of law or any tribunal is generally said to be null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever.[3] In the case of GTB v. Toyed (Nig) Ltd &Anor (2016)[4] the Nigerian Court of Appeal, per Ndukwe Anyawu, J.C.A restated the elementary law thus: It should be noted that this power and its limitation have different sources or the basis for its creation, thus there cannot be jurisdiction without a basis for its operation. It has been pronounced to be a fundamental principle in the practice of law, as a court which does not have jurisdiction cannot adjudicate successfully on matter brought before it. Thus, jurisdiction is basically determined on the following; the Constitution of the Court, Qualification, Subject matter and duly initiated cases and so forth[5] .
The reasons of establishment of jurisdiction in the adjudication of any case cannot be overemphasized as it goes to the root of the case and also eschew the abuse of court process. However, there is no doubt that in our adversary system of adjudication, jurisdiction has caused serious delay in the cause of justice. The problem is so fundamental that a party to a suit may hide under the cloak of trying to settle the question of jurisdiction to frustrate the justice of the case.
Jurisdiction has now become a tool for the delay of justice as proceedings which would have end as a nullity on time if the issue of jurisdiction is raised by the defendant timeously, is allowed to go through the required procedure of adjudication thereby having the court being congested with cases which has no future. In Arjay Ltd v. Aims Ltd (2003) the court held that Jurisdiction of a court is a matter of law and it is vested on a court by the Constitution and the statute establishing the court.[6] Further, jurisdiction has been described as the fulcrum, centre pin, or the main pillar upon which the validity of any decision of any court stands and around which other issues rotate. It cannot be assumed or implied, it cannot also be conferred by consent or acquiescence of parties.[7]
In this part, it is intended to appraised jurisdiction as the basis for the administration of justice, and the various courts in Nigeria with their powers. This will help to understand the status of the various court and scope of their jurisdictions, as well as the factors that confers jurisdiction on them or may rob them of such authority. Though the law allows the question of jurisdiction to be raised at any time before judgment[8] , before the same court or even for the first time on appeal at the higher courts. In the case of Babale v. Abdulkadir (1993) the Court held that: The Court is competent to exercise jurisdiction whenever the subject matter of the claim is within the jurisdiction of the court and the court is properly constituted in its composition and the qualification of its members and there is no extrinsic factor affecting its jurisdiction[9] [10]
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Jurisdiction has been pronounced to be a fundamental principle in the practice of law, as a court which does not have jurisdiction cannot adjudicate successfully on matter brought before it. There is no doubt that in our adversary system of adjudication, jurisdiction has caused serious delay in the cause of justice. The issue of jurisdiction is not only being abused, but has become an instrument of mischief in the hand of mischievous litigant.
It is therefore owing to the importance of jurisdiction that the courts of law or every tribunal exercising quasi-judicial function is required to ensure it has jurisdiction to entertain the matter brought before it to avoid embarking on a futile exercise. It means that any exercise of judicial power without jurisdiction is an exercise in futility regardless of the stage of the proceeding.
For a court to assume jurisdiction over any matter it must poses certain pre requisite that will clad the court the competent to do so. It therefore means that those pre requisite must as a matter of law be present and once any of them is absent it will rob the court the power to adjudicate on the matter hence makes the incompetent. This is why once the jurisdiction of the court is challenged, it must be considered first before any other consideration. The Supreme Court in the case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962)[11] , supra enumerated the basic components of jurisdiction of the court.
1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.
The aim of the study is to examine jurisdiction as a basis for the administration of justice in Nigeria with the purpose of identifying the sources of jurisdiction, the problems it poses and making recommendations.
The objectives of the study are:
- To examine jurisdiction as the basis for the administration of justice in Nigeria ii. To identify different sources of jurisdiction in Nigeria legal System iii. To examine the consequences of having and not having Jurisdiction.
1.3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS i What are the factors that confers jurisdiction in Nigeria courts. ii What are the problems that jurisdiction poses in the administration of justice.
iii What are the factors that interplay in assisting the court to determine jurisdiction.
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATION
The scope of this research will cover the power of courts as it relates to their various jurisdiction for the administration of justice in Nigeria. The major limitation to this study is challenge of gaining access to facts and detail document and judgments of various courts that relates to jurisdiction. Scarcity of literature, lack of information/ relevant data in relation to the project and other research materials pertaining to this topic constrained the study.
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY.
The relevance of jurisdiction in Nigeria legal System cannot be over emphasized. Therefore, the importance of the research is the formulation of a road map to change the narrative given off by present serious problem posed by jurisdiction in the administration of Justice in Nigeria
This research will be significant and justified by the veritable recommendations it will proffer on the best approach to the issue of jurisdiction in the administration of justice in Nigeria. It will in addition provide more useful information that would add to the body of knowledge and promote further research on the subject. The research will also examine the challenges associated with the problem pose by jurisdiction and suggest steps to be taken to resolve these problems.
1. 6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study will adopt the doctrinal and comparative research methods, reference will be made to both primary and secondary sources such as relevant textbooks, articles in journals and statutes. It was carried out through review of literature sources from the internet, statutes, and articles on jurisdiction as a basis for the administration of justice in Nigeria. It is also a comparative analysis of different court judgments in relation to the issue under study. A doctrinal approach to research focuses on case-law, statutes and other legal sources. Doctrinal methodology refers to a way of conducting research which is usually thought of as “typical legal research”.
1.7 LITERATURE REVIEW
Perhaps the most generally quoted definition about jurisdiction is that given by Mr. Justice Baldwin in United States v. Arredondo et al (2013) “The power to hear and determine a cause is jurisdiction; it is coram judici, whenever a case is presented which brings this power into action; if the petitioner states such a case in his petition that on a demurrer the court would render judgment in his favor, it is an undoubted case of jurisdiction, whether on an answer denying and putting in issue the allegations of the petition, the petitioner makes out his case, is the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by the filing of a petition containing all the requisites and in the manner prescribed by law.”
Ex parte Walker et al (1981) opened that it is defined as “the power or authority to pronounce the law on the case presented, and to pass upon and settle by its judgments the rights of the parties touching the subject-matter in controversy, and to enforce such sentence.” Blaise Pascal et al (2000) posited that jurisdiction is not given for the sake of the judge but for the litigant.
Basically, there are three major types of jurisdiction which have received judicial pronouncement and have been adopted by many legal scholars. They includes: personal, territorial and subject-matter jurisdictions. In Ibrahim v. INEC (1999 [12] this classification was somewhat echoed by the court in the following words: There must be jurisdiction on the subject matter and the person or an instrument establishing the court. Personal jurisdiction deals with the authority that a court of law exercises over persons regardless of the location of such persons. Example, a High Court in F.C.T Abuja can make an order that will bind a defendant in Lagos State provided that the necessary procedure or due process of law such as due service of the court processes in F.C.T Abuja have been made on that defendant in Lagos State. Essentially, the inherent powers of a court to exercise jurisdiction over persons are usually contained in the statutes and rules of courts.
Jurisdiction of courts can also be classified in terms of the hierarchy of courts in Nigeria or nature of subject matter. The appellation ascribe to it are: original, appellate, concurrent and exclusive jurisdictions. Original jurisdiction is the right of a court given to the court of first instance over a subject matter or any party. This kind of jurisdiction is possible at any layer of court. For example, there are cases for which only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction while there are others where only a magistrate court, an inferior court, has an original jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction deals with the supervisory power that a higher court exercises over and to review the judgment or proceedings of a lower court. This jurisdiction is basically meant for higher courts in their appellate status. Concurrent jurisdiction relates to where two different courts have similar or same power over a subject matter and party such that neither may bind or overrule the other over the same subject or party. For example, two different high courts of different states have equal and concurrent. This literature review does not infringe on any human rights and it is free from any form of plagiarisms.
1.8 SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTERS
This paper would be divided into five chapters. Chapter one contains General introduction which gives the general over view of the research. It will present the background of the study, statement of the problem, the objective of the research and the works of many scholars as it relate to the study.
Chapter two will expose the sources of jurisdiction, the fundamental principles of jurisdiction and the grades of courts, how jurisdiction is determined and consequences of having or not having jurisdictions.
Chapter three will deal with the controversies Attendant in the interpretation of section 251 of 1999 constitution as amended and whether jurisdiction could be waived when a party submits to jurisdiction.
Chapter four will examine jurisdiction as a tool for the delay of justice while chapter five will contain findings/ observation, recommendation and suggestions will form the concluding part of this paper.
[1] Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
[2] Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited v. Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency & Ors (2002)12 S.C (Pt.
- I) 26
[3] All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) v. Senator Christiana N.D. Anyawnwu & 2 Ors. (2014) LPELR-22182 (SC); SC 20/2013 (20114).
[4] (2016) LPELR-4181 (CA).
[5] (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 614) 334 @ 341.
[6] (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 820) 879
[7] Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd v. Isaiah (2001),
[8] National Hospital Abuja &Ors v. National Commission for Colleges of Education &Ors (2014)
[9] (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 281) 254. See also Olubukola Saraki v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt.
[10] ) SC 531
[11] (1962) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 4) 557, per Baramian JSC.
[12] (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 614) 334 @ 341.
AN APPRAISAL OF CONTROL AS THE FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN NIGERIA.
