OPDC PROPERTIES LTD. V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 277
ON NATURE OF ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
The issue of jurisdiction of a court is most fundamental. Thus, it can be raised at any stage of proceeding by the parties, or even suo motu by the court itself.
That is the reason why it’s desirable that preliminary objection should be raised early regarding issue of jurisdiction. However, once it’s so apparent to any of the respective parties that the court is devoid of jurisdiction, it can be raised even viva voce.
[Petrojessica Ent. Ltd. v. Leventis Tech. Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 675; Osadebay v. A.-G., Bendel State (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 169) 525; Owoniboys Tech. Services Ltd. v. John Holt Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 199) 550; Okesuji v. Lawal (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 170) 661; Katto v. C.B.N. (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) 126; Utih v. Onoyivwe (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 166) 166 referred to.]
(P. 309, paras. B–E)
OPDC PROPERTIES LTD. V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 277
ON TYPES OF JURISDICTION
There are two basic types of jurisdiction viz:
Jurisdiction as a matter of substantive law; and
Jurisdiction as a matter of procedural law.
With particular regard to jurisdiction as to substantive law, it is one that’s predicated upon the Constitution, law or common law. Thus, this type of statute-based jurisdiction can neither be waived nor conferred upon the court by the parties.
Contrariwise, however, a procedural jurisdiction can be waived where a litigant voluntarily submits thereto e.g. where a writ has been served outside jurisdiction without leave of court.
[Ndayako v. Dantoro (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt. 889) 187 referred to.]
(P. 309, paras. E–G)
OPDC PROPERTIES LTD. V. THE PEOPLE OF LAGOS STATE (2025) 14 NWLR (PT. 2005) 277
ON WHEN A COURT WILL NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE A MATTER
The issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental and crucial, as such it ought not to be taken lightly or for granted. Thus, a court must not causally delve into a matter when it’s so apparent that the conditions precedent are not satisfied. Thus, a court of law or tribunal is precluded from hearing and determining a matter once it is so obvious that –
(a) the court is not properly constituted;
(b) the condition precedent to its exercise of jurisdiction has not been fulfilled;
(c) the subject matter is not within its jurisdiction; or
(d) the case was not brought before it through due process of law.
In the instant case, the fact that the Attorney-General of Lagos State is statutorily acclaimed to be the Chief Law Officer of the State, is not in doubt. The Attorney-General of the State by virtue of the provision of section 211 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is conferred with far-reaching powers to initiate criminal prosecution against any person(s) whom he reasonably believes to have committed a crime. The appellant and 2nd -6th respondents vehemently objected to the charge against them, upon the ground that they were not interrogated by the police regarding the alleged offences in question. It was further contended, that the evidence attached to the information contained facts which were subject of a judgment wherein the court ordered that the documents relating to the proof of evidence should not be part of any court proceedings. However, it ought to be stressed, that the procedure specifically prescribed under the AOL of Lagos State, is very unequivocal and unambiguous. Thus, any challenge to a charge based upon non-investigation or in-conclusive investigation, as in the instant case, could not be raised prior to the close of prosecution ’s case, as same would be deemed immature. Undoubtedly, the prosecutorial power of the Attorney-General of the State is exercisable under section 211 of the 1999 Constitution in any court or tribunal in Nigeria, save the court martial.
[Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 350; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 referred to.]
(Pp. 309-310, paras. H-G)
HABIBU V. STATE (2024) 6 NWLR (PT. 1935) 483
ON WHETHER CRIMINAL TRIAL COMMENCED IN ONE JUDICIAL DIVISION OF A STATE HIGH COURT CAN BE CONTINUED IN ANOTHER JUDICIAL DIVISION OF SAME COURT
Section 270(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) states that there shall be a High Court for each State of the Federation. The Constitution only created one High Court for each State of the Federation. While the High Courts of different States are divided into judicial divisions, that is only for easy dispatch of business and administrative convenience. The jurisdiction of the High Court of a State, including Jigawa State remains one and unbroken. The jurisdiction of a court is not fragmented by the creation of judicial divisions. Judicial divisions are only created for convenient dispatch of the business of the court and for administrative convenience. It is a matter of venue and not an issue of jurisdiction. A court that validly assumed jurisdiction over a suit in one Judicial Division is not divested of jurisdiction by the mere fact that it sits in another Judicial Division of the same court. In this case, the argument of the appellant that he was an accused person before the Ringim Division of the High Court of Jigawa State, but not before the Dutse Division of the High Court of Jigawa State is baseless because he was an accused person before the High Court of Jigawa State irrespective of the Judicial Division in which the court sat. In other words, it was immaterial whether the trial Judge sat in court No. 6, Ringim Judicial Division or in court No. 4, Dutse Judicial Division because the trial Judge still presided over the case in the single High Court of Jigawa State created by the Constitution. [Adegbola v. Idowu (2020) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1722) 94; Ogigie v. Obiyan (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt.524) 17; Egbo v. Agbara (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 481)293 referred to.] (Pp. 517-518, paras. F-C).
STATE V. SABAGI (2024) 15 NWLR (PT. 1961) 295
ON WHEN A COURT IS SAID TO HAVE JURISDICTION
A court of law is invested with jurisdiction to hear a matter when:
(a) it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and
(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.
The three ingredients must co-exist in order to infuse jurisdiction into a court. In the instant case, the appellant’s failure to sign the charge constituted a serious feature in the case that drained the trial court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the criminal case. Moreover, the non-endorsement of the charge was an ample demonstration that the case was not initiated by due process and upon the fulfillment of any condition-precedent for the exercise of the trial court’s jurisdiction. [Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1961) 2 SCNLR 341; Saraki v. F.R.N. (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) 531; Agbiti v. Nigerian Navy (2011) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1236) 175; Mbah v. State (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt.1415) 316; Mohammed v. F.R.N. (2018) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1636) 229; Amah v. F.R.N. (2014) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1415) 316; F.R.N. v. Adeniyi (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 167) 238 referred to.] (Pp. 327-328, paras. H-F).