Want Of Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction is the legal power or authority which a
court must have to decide matter that are litigated before it, or to take congnisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this legal power or authority are circumscribed by the statute or Act of the National Assembly under which the court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by similar means. It is also a well-established principle of our law, that it is the claim of the plaintiff which determines the jurisdiction of a court entertaining the suit.
There are broadly two types jurisdiction, namely;
a)    Jurisdiction as a matter of procedural law
b)    Jurisdiction as a matter of substantive law while a litigant may submit to a procedural jurisdiction he or she cannot confer jurisdiction on a court where the constitution or a statute or any provision of the common law says that the court does not have jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is the enabling power of a court to deal with a matter before it. And so without jurisdiction the court or the parties labour in vain, no matter how much good work they respectively have put in the case is of futile effort. Hence the court can take the point Suo motu and has to determine that question at the earliest time, it becomes clear to the court that its jurisdiction is in issue and to decide that question one way or the other before taking any further step on the matter. Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, in the high court, on appeal and even in the supreme court for the first time (see Usman Dan Fodio University V Krans Thompson Organisation Ltd (2001) 15 NWLR (pt 736) pg 305). It can be raised by any of the parties or by the court and once raised, the judge will do well to examine it and render a considered ruling on it.
The principle that must be considered diligently by a judge which determine if a court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a case are:
a)    Whether the subject matter of the case is within the court’s jurisdiction.
b)    Whether there is any feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction.
c)    Whether the case before the court is initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Ajao V Popoola (1986) S NWLR ((Pt 15)pg.802.
The law in force or existing at the time the case of action arose, is the applicable law for determining the case. This law does not necessarily determine the jurisdiction of the court, at the time that jurisdiction is invoked. In other words the law in force at the time the cause of action arose governs the determination of the suit, with the law in force at the time of trial, based on the cause of action, determines the court vested with jurisdiction to try the case. For example, Decree 107 of 1993 came into force on 17/11/93. A litigant who had a  cause of action in 1990 would have his case governed by existing law at that time, if the trial commences before 1993. The court to try the case would be the High Court but after 17/93, the case would be tried at the Federal High court. Decree 107 of 1993 denied the state High court jurisdiction as from 17/11/93 and transferred jurisdiction on the matters in section 230 of 1979 constitution (now section 251 of the 1999 constitution) to the Federal High court. As from 17/11/93 the state High court no longer had jurisdiction.
Once a court lacks jurisdiction, a party cannot use any statutory provision or law principle to impose it, because absence of jurisdiction is irreparable in law. The matter ends there, the only procedural duty of the court in the circumstance is to strike it out.

Nkechi Bright-Ewere