GEORGE T. OGARA v. PATRICK O. ASADU & ORS
(2014)LCN/6930(CA)
RATIO
JURISDICTION: WHAT DETERMINES WHETHER A COURT HAS THE REQUISITE JURISDICTIONAL COMPETENCE TO DETERMINE A SUIT
Now, in the resolution of this first issue on whether the Federal High Court, Enugu Division sitting at Enugu, had the jurisdiction to hear and determine who the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party for the Nsukka/Igbo-Eze South April 2011 Federal Constituency General Elections to the House of Representatives, it would appear that parties are ad idem on the authorities of Seatrucks Nig. Ltd. v. Anigboro (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 399) 43; Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 9 – 10 S.C. 31 (1976) 9 – 10 S.C. (Reprint) 18; Elf-Oil Nigeria Ltd. v. Oyo State B.I.R. (2008) F.W.L.R. (Pt. 138) 1359 at 1367 para. H per Tabai, J.C.A. (as he then was); Nwadike v. Administrator-General of Anambra State (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 462) 315 and Ports & Cargo Handling Services Co. Ltd. & 3 Ors v. MIGFO (Nig.) Ltd. & Anor. (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt.1153) 677; per Nwodo, J.C.A. (of blessed memory) all cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant as well as Hon. Prof. C. Uwazuruike & Anor v. Chief A Nwachukwu & Anor (2012) Vol. 214 LRCN 71 at 86 and Gbagharigha V. Toruemi & Anor (2013) Vol. 215 LRCN 152 at 177 FK; per Ogunbiyi, J.S.C., cited by the learned counsel for 1st Respondent that it is now trite that jurisdiction is a fundamental and threshold issue, the font et origo of adjudication and the lifeblood that animates or ignites the court’s exercise of its adjudicatory powers in any suit before it.
The above cited authorities have also restated the age old position of the law as established by our apex court and indeed this court, that it is the claim of the Plaintiff as expressed either in his writ of Summons or Statement of Claim or any other originating process, that determines whether a court is seised with the requisite jurisdictional competence to entertain and determine any suit before it. At this juncture, it will not be out of place to resort to the locus classicus of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR (Pt.4) 587; where our erstwhile Federal Supreme Court held that a court is said to be competent when:
1. It is properly constituted as to its members and no member is for any reason or the other disqualified to sit;
2. The subject matter of the dispute is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction and
3. The case comes before the court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
All these requirements must co-exist conjunctively in order for the jurisdiction of the court to be invoked and exercised by the Claimant or Plaintiff. Thus, where any or all of these basic elements or requirements are lacking and a court be it trial or Appellate, goes ahead to hear and determine a case, the proceeding shall be a nullity no matter how brilliantly and well conducted as well as sound the judgment may be. See Umanah v. Attah (2006) 17 NWLR (Pt.1009) 503 (S.C.); Skensconsult v. Ukey (1981) 7 S.C. 6; Magaji v. Matari (2000) 5 S. C. 46; Alao v. African Continental Bank Ltd. (2000) 6 S. C. (pt 1) 27 and Lufthansa Airlines v. Odiese (2006) (Pt. 978) 38; Adetona v. I. G. Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 7 NWLR (pt.1036) 332; Onwuka v. R.T.C.M.Z.C. (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1243) 341 at 359 para D. Per IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A
