Legalpedia Citation: (2015-03) Legalpedia (SC) 12111
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Mar 12, 2015
Suit Number: SC. 478/2013
CORAM
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CENTUS CHIMA NWEZE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA ENEH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA ENEH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
OCHOLI ENOJO JAMES, SAN APPELLANTS
1.INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION (INEC)
2.PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PDP)
3.CAPTAIN IDRIS ICHALLA WADA
4.PRINCE ABUBAKAR AUDU
5.ELDER UBOLO OKPANACHI
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The former Governor of Kogi State Ibrahim Idris instituted an action before the Federal High Court against the 1st Respondent(INEC) claiming that the gubernatorial election slated to hold in April 2011 by the 1st Respondent in the State could not hold as his tenure would subsist until April 2012. The Governors of Adamawa State, Bayelsa, Cross River and Sokoto States also instituted actions with similar grounds against the 1st Respondent. Thus, the Court consolidated the five(5) cases. At the close of trial, the trial Court restrained the 1st Respondent(INEC) from conducting election in Kogi State until the expiration of the 4 years tenure of the then Governor. Hence, the 1st Respondent cancelled the April 2011 election and fixed 3rd of December 2011 as the new date, and still went ahead to appeal against the decision of the trial court at the Court of Appeal Abuja Division .The Court of Appeal in its judgment in the consolidated appeal affirmed the decision of the trial Court. A further appeal to the apex court was pending when the 3rd of December election was conducted in the State and the Appellant lost to the 3rd Respondent who emerged as the Governor of Kogi State. The aggrieved parties filed their respective petitions against the conduct of the Election at the Election Tribunal where the outcome of the election was validated. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the lower court and subsequently the Supreme Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of the consolidated Appeal was thereafter delivered and the Supreme Court stated that the tenure of office of the Kogi State Governor Ibrahim Idris has since expired on the 11th of May 2011. The Appellant thereafter by an originating summons before the trial court contended that the April 2011 election as previously slated by the 1st Respondent was not cancelled but postponed and since the newly elected Governor was not a candidate as at April 2011, he is therefore not qualified to have contested for the December 2011 election and his election should be nullified. The Respondents’ preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court to entertain such matter was upheld by the court and the matter dismissed. Dissatisfied with the dismissal, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where the decision of the trial court was affirmed, hence he has further appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the lower court was right when it failed to consider the issue of whether the election of 26th April, 2011 was a postponed election before it resolved the issue of jurisdiction. (Ground 6 of the Notice of Appeal and Additional Ground Whether the lower court was right in holding that it was the Governorship Election Petition Tribunal that has the jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s claim. (Ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal)?
2. Whether the appellant’s claim as formulated in the Amended Originating Summons was statute barred so as to warrant the lower court finding that the appellant cannot be heard even if there was no limitation period. (Grounds 2 and 4 of the Notice of Appeal and Additional Ground 1)?
3. Whether this Honourable Court has the power under section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to consider and pronounce on the merit or otherwise of the appellant’s claim in this appeal since the lower court failed to exercise its power under section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act. (Additional Ground 3)?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
COURTS – COURTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DECIDE THE MAIN ISSUE AT AN INTERLOCUTORY STAGE
“It is trite that courts are not allowed to delve into or decide the main issue at an interlocutory stage.” PER J.I.OKORO, J.S.C
INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION – DUTY OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE INTENTION OF THE LAWMAKERS IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
“In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution and indeed any statute, one of the important considerations is the intention of the lawmaker. In addition to giving the words used their natural and ordinary meaning (unless such construction would lead to absurdity), it is also settled that it is not the duty of the court to construe any of the provisions of the Constitution in such a way as to defeat the obvious ends it was designed to serve where another construction equally in accord and consistent with the words and sense of such provisions will serve to enforce and protect such ends. See; Mohammed Vs Olawunmi (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.133) 458: Rabiu Vs The State (1980) 2 NCLR 293: Adetayo Vs Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (supra) @ 190 – 191 G – A: 205 D – F”. PER K. M. O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE THAT DETERMINES THE COMPETENCE OF THE COURT TO ADJUDICATE ON THE ISSUE PLACED BEFORE IT
“There is no modicum of doubt that the issue of jurisdiction is a threshold issue. It is so fundamental and touches on the competence of the court to adjudicate on the particular issue placed before it. It has been held severally in this court that once issue of jurisdiction is raised, it must be determined first before any other step is taken in the proceedings. The reason is that where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter and it goes ahead to undertake a hearing, that hearing no matter how well conducted, is a nullity and the judgment generated therefrom cannot stand. And that is why issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the trial. It can even be raised for the first time at the Apex Court by any of the parties or even by the court suo motu. See Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd & Anor. V. Leventis Technical Company Ltd. (1992) NWLR (pt 244) 675, Osadebay V. Attorney General, Bendel State (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 169) 525; Owoniboys Tech. Services Ltd V. John Holt Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (pt. 199) 550”. PER J.I.OKORO, J.S.C
JURISDICTION OF COURT- DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT
“The law is trite that it is the claim of the plaintiff or the subject matter of the claim that determines the jurisdiction of a court”. PER C.B.OGUNBIYI J.S.C
COMPETENCE OF A COURT – REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST CO-EXIST CONJUNCTIVELY BEFORE A COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION
“It is also the law that a Court is competent when -“(a) It is properly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the Bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other; (b) 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 (c) The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.” All these requirements must co-exist conjunctively before jurisdiction can be exercised by the Court. See Madukolu & Ors VS. Nkemdelim & Ors (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 587, Skenconsult Vs. Ukey (1981) 1 SC.6 and Benin Rubber Products Ltd Vs. Ojo (1997) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt.521) 388”. PER M. MOHAMMED,C.J.N
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST BE FORMULATED FROM THE GROUND OF APPEAL
“The law is that the issues for determination must be formulated from grounds of appeal which in turn must derive from the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against. See: Egbe Vs Alhaji (1990) 3 SC (Pt. Ill) 63® 109: Palek Nig Ltd Vs OMPADEC(2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 364) 204 @ 226 F-H.” PER K. M. O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
LACK OF JURISDICTION – WHERE A COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A MATTER, IT LACKS THE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ANY ISSUE ARISING IN THAT MATTER
“It is clear that where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter, it lacks jurisdiction to determine any issue arising within that cause or matter. To attempt to do so would amount to delving into the merit of the case, which would amount to a nullity in the event that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine the suit. It is a correct statement of the law that in order to determine whether or not the court has jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter it is the claim of the plaintiff that would be considered. See: A.G. Federation Vs Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt.618) 187: (1989) 5 SC (Pt.III) 59: Uwaifo Vs A.G. Bendel State (1982) 7 SC 124: Adeyemi V Opeyori (1976) 6 – 10 SC 31: Amaechi Vs INEC (No.2) (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.1065) 98.The court must take an overview of the entire case brought before it to determine whether it has jurisdiction or not. See: Gbileve Vs Addingi (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt.1433) 394@431 C – G”. PER K. M. O.KEKERE-EKUN J.S.C
NATURE OF ELECTION MATTERS – ELECTION MATTERS ARE SUI GENERIS
“Election matters are sui generis with their own constitutional and statutory provisions. See: Ehuwa Vs O.S.I.E.C. (2006) 544 @ 590 A – B: Hassan Vs Aliyu (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547 @ 599C.By enacting specific provisions in Section 285(2) of the Constitution conferring jurisdiction on Election Tribunals, it is clear that it is the intention of the lawmaker to provide a separate forum for the determination of whether any person has been validly elected into the office of Governor or Deputy Governor of a state”. PER K. M. O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
FILING AN ELECTION MATTER – TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN FILING AN ELECTION MATTER
“However, it is not the position of this court that a pre-election matter may be filed at the whims and caprices of a litigant. It has been emphasised time and again that in an election or election related matter, time is of the essence. It was held in the case of Hassan Vs Aliyu (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547 @ 599 D – E
Per Onnoghen, JSC thus:
“It is settled law that in an election or election related matter, time is of the essence. I will add that the same applies to pre-election matters. Election matters are sui generis, very much unlike ordinary civil or criminal proceedings. Appellant ought to have instituted the action soon after the substitution to keep his interest in the political contest alive but he did not
…I hold the view that at the time the appellant decided to go to court in the circumstances of this case, the question of nomination by way of substitution, which is a pre-election matter had ceased to exist, leaving only the election proper to be questioned and the proper place to do so is the election tribunal.”
See also: Salim Vs C.P.C. (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt.1351) 501 @524 – 525 H — C:Wambai Vs Donatus (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt752) 1673 @ 1695 – 1696 B – C: (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt.1427) 223: Gwede Vs INEC (2014) 18 NWLR
(Pt.1438) 56 @ 100 – 101 G – D: 129 B – H: 147 – 148 F–H.” PER K. M. O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
JURISDICTION OF COURT – JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED ON A COURT BY THE STATUTE CREATING IT
“The law is well settled that Courts are creatures of statutes and it is the statute that created a particular Court that will also confer jurisdiction on that Court. It is only the Legislature that may vary or increase the jurisdiction of any Court created by it. See Okulate Vs Awosanya (2000) 1 SC.107.” PER M. MOHAMMED, C.J.N
ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION CAN BE RIGHTLY ASSUMED IF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION IS PROVIDED FOR BY AN ENABLING STATUTE
“Jurisdiction would be rightly assumed if the subject matter of the action is provided for by the enabling statute. See Attorney General of Kwara State V. Olawale (1993) 1 SCNJ 208”.PER M.D. MUHAMMAD, J.S.C
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION- THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION ONCE RAISED MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE FURTHER STEP IS TAKEN IN THE PROCEEDING
“Now the law is quite well settled that once the issue of jurisdiction is raised before any court, it must be resolved before any further step is taken in the proceedings. The reason for this is not far fetched. It is because jurisdiction is fundamental to the competence of the court adjudicating. It is the foundation upon which the entire adjudication process is founded. It has been described as the lifeblood of adjudication, without which a court or tribunal would lack the vires to entertain the proceedings ab initio. See: Kalio Vs Daniel (1975) 2 SC 15:A.G. Lagos State Vs Dosunmu (19891 3NWLR (Pt.lll) 552@567: Oloriode Vs Oyebi(1984) 1 SCNLR 390; The law is trite that any decision reached without jurisdiction, no matter how well conducted, is a nullity and liable to be set aside. Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.The issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental that it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and even for the first time on appeal to this court. See: Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd. Vs Leventis Technical Co, Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.244) 675 @ 693 E – G: Ogembe Vs Usman &Ors (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638. This court eloquently stated the need for an issue of jurisdiction to be determined once it is raised in the case of Issac Obiuweubi Vs Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 465 @ 494 D – F per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, where His Lordship stated thus:
“It is thus mandatory that courts decide the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding to consider any other matter. See Bronik Motors Ltd & Anor vs Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 1 SCNLR P. 296; Okoya Vs Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (PL 131) P. 172; Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) 1ANLR (Pt. 4) 587; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341…
Usually where a courts jurisdiction is challenged by the defence, it is better to settle the issue one way or the other before proceeding to hear a case on the merits. Any failure by the court to determine any preliminary objection or any form of challenge to its jurisdiction is a fundamental breach which renders further steps taken in the proceedings a nullity.”
See also: NEPA Vs Olagunju (2005) 3 NWLR TPt.913) 602 @ 621 E.G”. PER K. M. O.KEKERE-EKUN, J.S.C
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION- THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION ONCE RAISED MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE FURTHER STEP IS TAKEN IN THE PROCEEDING
“Now the law is quite well settled that once the issue of jurisdiction is raised before any court, it must be resolved before any further step is taken in the proceedings. The reason for this is not far fetched. It is because jurisdiction is fundamental to the competence of the court adjudicating. It is the foundation upon which the entire adjudication process is founded. It has been described as the lifeblood of adjudication, without which a court or tribunal would lack the vires to entertain the proceedings ab initio. See: Kalio Vs Daniel (1975) 2 SC 15:A.G. Lagos State Vs Dosunmu (19891 3NWLR (Pt.lll) 552@567: Oloriode Vs Oyebi(1984) 1 SCNLR 390; The law is trite that any decision reached without jurisdiction, no matter how well conducted, is a nullity and liable to be set aside. Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341.The issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental that it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and even for the first time on appeal to this court. See: Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd. Vs Leventis Technical Co, Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.244) 675 @ 693 E – G: Ogembe Vs Usman &Ors (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt.1277) 638. This court eloquently stated the need for an issue of jurisdiction to be determined once it is raised in the case of Issac Obiuweubi Vs Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1247) 465 @ 494 D – F per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, where His Lordship stated thus:
“It is thus mandatory that courts decide the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding to consider any other matter. See Bronik Motors Ltd & Anor vs Wema Bank Ltd. (1983) 1 SCNLR P. 296; Okoya Vs Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (PL 131) P. 172; Madukolu Vs Nkemdilim (1962) 1ANLR (Pt. 4) 587; (1962) 2 SCNLR 341…
Usually where a courts jurisdiction is challenged by the defence, it is better to settle the issue one way or the other before proceeding to hear a case on the merits. Any failure by the court to determine any preliminary objection or any form of challenge to its jurisdiction is a fundamental breach which renders further steps taken in the proceedings a nullity.”
See also: NEPA Vs Olagunju (2005) 3 NWLR TPt.913) 602 @ 621 E.G”.
LACK OF JURISDICTION – WHERE A COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A MATTER, IT LACKS THE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE ANY ISSUE ARISING IN THAT MATTER
“It is clear that where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter, it lacks jurisdiction to determine any issue arising within that cause or matter. To attempt to do so would amount to delving into the merit of the case, which would amount to a nullity in the event that the court lacks jurisdiction to determine the suit. It is a correct statement of the law that in order to determine whether or not the court has jurisdiction to entertain a cause or matter it is the claim of the plaintiff that would be considered. See: A.G. Federation Vs Guardian Newspapers Ltd. (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt.618) 187: (1989) 5 SC (Pt.III) 59: Uwaifo Vs A.G. Bendel State (1982) 7 SC 124: Adeyemi V Opeyori (1976) 6 – 10 SC 31: Amaechi Vs INEC (No.2) (2007) 18 NWLR (Pt.1065) 98.The court must take an overview of the entire case brought before it to determine whether it has jurisdiction or not. See: Gbileve Vs Addingi (2014) 16 NWLR (Pt.1433) 394@431 C – G”.
INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION – DUTY OF THE COURT TO CONSIDER THE INTENTION OF THE LAWMAKERS IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION
“In interpreting the provisions of the Constitution and indeed any statute, one of the important considerations is the intention of the lawmaker. In addition to giving the words used their natural and ordinary meaning (unless such construction would lead to absurdity), it is also settled that it is not the duty of the court to construe any of the provisions of the Constitution in such a way as to defeat the obvious ends it was designed to serve where another construction equally in accord and consistent with the words and sense of such provisions will serve to enforce and protect such ends. See; Mohammed Vs Olawunmi (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt.133) 458: Rabiu Vs The State (1980) 2 NCLR 293: Adetayo Vs Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (supra) @ 190 – 191 G – A: 205 D – F”.
NATURE OF ELECTION MATTERS – ELECTION MATTERS ARE SUI GENERIS
“Election matters are sui generis with their own constitutional and statutory provisions. See: Ehuwa Vs O.S.I.E.C. (2006) 544 @ 590 A – B: Hassan Vs Aliyu (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547 @ 599C.By enacting specific provisions in Section 285(2) of the Constitution conferring jurisdiction on Election Tribunals, it is clear that it is the intention of the lawmaker to provide a separate forum for the determination of whether any person has been validly elected into the office of Governor or Deputy Governor of a state”.
FILING AN ELECTION MATTER – TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN FILING AN ELECTION MATTER
“However, it is not the position of this court that a pre-election matter may be filed at the whims and caprices of a litigant. It has been emphasised time and again that in an election or election related matter, time is of the essence. It was held in the case of Hassan Vs Aliyu (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1223) 547 @ 599 D – E
Per Onnoghen, JSC thus:
“It is settled law that in an election or election related matter, time is of the essence. I will add that the same applies to pre-election matters. Election matters are sui generis, very much unlike ordinary civil or criminal proceedings. Appellant ought to have instituted the action soon after the substitution to keep his interest in the political contest alive but he did not
…I hold the view that at the time the appellant decided to go to court in the circumstances of this case, the question of nomination by way of substitution, which is a pre-election matter had ceased to exist, leaving only the election proper to be questioned and the proper place to do so is the election tribunal.”
See also: Salim Vs C.P.C. (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt.1351) 501 @524 – 525 H – C:Wambai Vs Donatus (2014) ALL FWLR (Pt752) 1673 @ 1695 – 1696 B – C: (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt.1427) 223: Gwede Vs INEC (2014) 18 NWLR
(Pt.1438) 56 @ 100 – 101 G – D: 129 B – H: 147 – 148 F-H.”
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST BE FORMULATED FROM THE GROUND OF APPEAL
“The law is that the issues for determination must be formulated from grounds of appeal which in turn must derive from the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against. See: Egbe Vs Alhaji (1990) 3 SC (Pt. Ill) 63® 109: Palek Nig Ltd Vs OMPADEC(2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 364) 204 @ 226 F-H.”
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION IS A THRESHOLD ISSUE THAT DETERMINES THE COMPETENCE OF THE COURT TO ADJUDICATE ON THE ISSUE PLACED BEFORE IT
“There is no modicum of doubt that the issue of jurisdiction is a threshold issue. It is so fundamental and touches on the competence of the court to adjudicate on the particular issue placed before it. It has been held severally in this court that once issue of jurisdiction is raised, it must be determined first before any other step is taken in the proceedings. The reason is that where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter and it goes ahead to undertake a hearing, that hearing no matter how well conducted, is a nullity and the judgment generated therefrom cannot stand. And that is why issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the trial. It can even be raised for the first time at the Apex Court by any of the parties or even by the court suo motu. See Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd & Anor. V. Leventis Technical Company Ltd. (1992) NWLR (pt 244) 675, Osadebay V. Attorney General, Bendel State (1991) 1 NWLR (pt. 169) 525; Owoniboys Tech. Services Ltd V. John Holt Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (pt. 199) 550″.
COURTS – COURTS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DECIDE THE MAIN ISSUE AT AN INTERLOCUTORY STAGE
“It is trite that courts are not allowed to delve into or decide the main issue at an interlocutory stage.”
ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION CAN BE RIGHTLY ASSUMED IF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION IS PROVIDED FOR BY AN ENABLING STATUTE
“Jurisdiction would be rightly assumed if the subject matter of the action is provided for by the enabling statute. See Attorney General of Kwara State V. Olawale (1993) 1 SCNJ 208″.
JURISDICTION OF COURT- DETERMINATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF COURT
“The law is trite that it is the claim of the plaintiff or the subject matter of the claim that determines the jurisdiction of a court”.
JURISDICTION OF COURT – JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED ON A COURT BY THE STATUTE CREATING IT
“The law is well settled that Courts are creatures of statutes and it is the statute that created a particular Court that will also confer jurisdiction on that Court. It is only the Legislature that may vary or increase the jurisdiction of any Court created by it. See Okulate Vs Awosanya (2000) 1 SC.107.”
COMPETENCE OF A COURT – REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST CO-EXIST CONJUNCTIVELY BEFORE A COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION
“It is also the law that a Court is competent when –
“(a) It is properly constituted as regards members and qualification of the members of the Bench and no member is disqualified for one reason or the other;
(b) 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
(c) The case comes before the Court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.”
All these requirements must co-exist conjunctively before jurisdiction can be exercised by the Court. See Madukolu & Ors VS. Nkemdelim & Ors (1962) 1 All N.L.R. 587, Skenconsult Vs. Ukey (1981) 1 SC.6 and Benin Rubber Products Ltd Vs. Ojo (1997) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt.521) 388″.
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
Electoral Act 2010 (as amended)