CORAM
SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
AKINTOLA OLUFEMI EJIWUNM, IJUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
CHIKEZIE ONYEANUSI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant applied for an order of prohibition to restrain the respondent from further proceeding with the charge against him on the ground that the respondent lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the said charge. ?
HELD
The court held that the respondent had jurisdiction and therefore the proceedings cannot be inquired into by the court because of the ouster provision in Special Tribunal Decree, 1984 as amended by Decree No. 22 of 1986 under which the appellant was charged. ?
ISSUES
1. Whether the question of the construction/inter-pretation of section 3(4)(a) of Decree No. 20 of 1984 as amended by Decree No. 22 of 1986 was the very thing referred to the Court of Appeal by the Appellant.2. Whether on a true and correct construction/interpretation of section 3(4) of Decree No. 20 of 1984 as amended by Decree No. 22 of 1986, the Court of Appeal was right in its conclusion, that the offence under which the Appellant and 33 others were charged in count one comes under section 3(4) of Decree No. 20 of 1984 as amended by Decree No. 22 of 1986.3. Whether section 8(1) of Decree No. 20 of 1984 as amended by Decree No. 22 of 1986 ousts the jurisdiction of Imo State High Court of Justice for all purposes as held by C.B.C. Ubah, J and affirmed by the Court of Appeal.4. Whether taking into account the circumstances of this case, the Court of Appeal should not have made an order setting aside the ruling of the High Court of Imo State (C.B.C. Ubah, J) dated 30th April, 1991 and prohibited the Respondent from further proceeding with the trial of charge No. M.O.T./IM/16C/90: The Federal Republic of Nigeria versus Chikezie Onyeanusi and 33 others.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
OUSTER CLAUSES – EFFECT OF WHERE COURT EXCEEDS ITS JURISDICTION
When a law establishing an inferior court or tribunal sets out the jurisdiction of that court or tribunal, the intention is that that jurisdiction must not be exceeded. No ouster clause in the law establishing the said court or tribunal can protect it against a violation of its jurisdictional limits. It is only when the court or tribunal acts within jurisdiction set for it and in that regard does or purports to do anything that it can hide behind the ouster clause – Ogwuegbu J.S.C.
CASES CITED
Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 WLR 123R v. Plowright (1686) 3 Mod. 94.Oram v. Breary (1877) 2 EX D 346 and Francis v. Yiewley & West Drayton Urban District Council (1957) 2 QB136.Attorney-General of the Federation & Or. v. Sode & Ors. (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt.128) 50?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Special Tribunal Decree, 1984Decree No. 22 of 1986