Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction of a court is the power of court to hear and determine matters originating from within the circumference of its allotted territory by law. This jurisdiction is exercisable over the res, persons and causes. In Dariye V TRN (2015) LPELR – 24398 (SC) Ngwuta JSC held, “Territorial jurisdiction implies a geographic area within which the authority of the court may be exercised and outside which the court has no power to act. Jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, is statutory and is conferred on the court by the law creating it.”
The law is settled that a judge in one state of the Federation of Nigeria cannot assume jurisdiction and exercise jurisdiction over a subject matter in another state of the federation. In sections 270 and 272 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999, the High Court of a state is established to function in its own state. In the case of Usman V. The State (2014) 12 NWLR (PT 1421) 207, Rhodes – Vivour JSC held that the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court of a state is limited to the territorial boundaries of the state.
There is a distinction between the various types of jurisdiction i.e, extra territorial jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction and local jurisdiction. With regard to territorial, a court can try any person, citizen or non-citizen, who is alleged to have committed an offence in Nigeria within the territory where the court in question has jurisdiction. The power of a court to try an accused person for an offence committed within the country is divided between the federating units. As such one or more of the federating units may possess jurisdiction to try an accused person.
In Golit V. Inspector General of Police (2018) LPELR – 46188 (CA) the charge against the appellant in the case clearly stated that the offence took place in Okene Kogi State, for the avoidance of doubt it reads thus “That you Joshua Oghene ‘M’, Haruna Afegbai ‘M’, Bulus Golit ‘M’ among yourselves agreed and did mobilise, instigate Festus Oghene ‘M’, youth leader of Okpella town in Edo State, now at large on or about the 30th day of September 2014 at the hour of 12:45pm at Okene within the jurisdiction of this court did unlawfully conspire amongst yourselves to commit an offence punishable under section 99 of the Penal Code law Cap 89 of Northern Nigeria.”
The charge stated the offence was committed in Okene. The mere fact that the victims of the crime were taken to Opella from Okene does not per se mean that the offence was committed at Okpelle. The institution of an action in a court outside the territorial jurisdiction of a state where the cause of action arose is different from instituting an action outside the judicial division in the same state where the cause of action arose. There is a distinction between venue as an aspect of jurisdiction, which could be administrative or geographical, in which a suit may be heard, is often provided in the rules of court of various states of the federation. But where it comes to territorial jurisdiction, which is whether a suit ought to have been brought in another state, the criterium is different. In such a case the court has no jurisdiction and it cannot be conferred by agreement or consent of the parties.
Regardless of our lopsided arrangement about our constitutional dispensation of federalism, the facts remain valid that state courts are bound to respect their territorial jurisdiction and keep to the dictates of the constitution.

By: Nkechi Bright-Ewere