Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction refers to jurisdiction over cases arising in or involving persons residing within a defined territory . It can also be the territory over which a government, one of its courts, or one of its subdivisions has jurisdiction. If a court does not have territorial jurisdiction over the events, or persons within it, then the court will not be able to bind the defendant to an obligation or adjudicate any rights involving them. This simply means that if a law is restricted by territory, that law cannot be applied outside that territory. Jurisdiction of a court to entertain a suit is the lifeline of all trials.
If an offence is committed outside Nigeria but part of the offence is committed in Nigeria, the courts will acquire jurisdiction to try the case in Nigeria. In R v.Osoba (1961) vol. 1 ANLR, the appellant was convicted on charges of theft. He had by virtue of his position as Managing Director of a company directed, via a telegram in Lagos, that a particular sum of money be paid out from the company to a bank account in London. On appeal, it was contended for the appellant that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to try the case, the appellate court in dismissing the appeal held that the trial court had jurisdiction since the initial element of the offence was carried out in Nigeria.
Also, if an offence was carried out in a state and other parts of the offence were committed in another state. If the offender later comes into the initial state, he would be held liable as if he committed the whole offence in that state. In Sunday OkoroV. AG Western Nigeria (1966)NMLR, the accused posted a letter in Port Harcourt which induced the fraud of certain people in Ibadan. The court held that the former Western region had the jurisdiction to try the case since an element of the offence occurred in its territory.
In the case of Minister of Works and Housing V. Shittu (2008) ALL F.WL.R (pt 401) 847 at 863-864, the court set out the conditions precedent to a court’s exercise of jurisdiction . It held as follows: “A court is generally competent to adjudicate over a matter only when all the conditions precedent for its having jurisdiction are fulfilled:
A court will be competent, when:-
1. 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.
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.
3. The case comes before the court initiated by the process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. Any defect in competence is fatal for the proceedings and becomes a nullity, however well conducted and decided, the defect is extrinsic to adjudication. Per Nimpar J.C.A (pp 14-15, para C-A).
Indeed, the territorial jurisdiction of a trial court is relevant for the validity of any proceedings before a court.

By: Nkechi Bright – Ewere.