TESSI JANE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ANOR v. FINANCIAL DATANET HOUSE LIMITED & ORS
(2014)LCN/6940(CA)
RATIO
JURISDICTION: WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAD THE POWER TO ENTERTAIN THE ORIGINATING SUMMONS
In A.G. KWARA STATE v. OLAWALE (1993) 1 NWLR PT.272 @ 645 it was held that: “It is a settled proposition of Law that jurisdiction is assumed where:
a. the person bringing the action is property before the court and
b. the subject matter of the action is properly before the Court”
These are only properly before the Court when, by the enabling Statute or by its inherent jurisdiction, the Court can exercise jurisdiction over the parties. The Courts have inherent jurisdiction to refuse to entertain an incompetent action, by declining jurisdiction. Per RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU J.C.A
WHETHER HAVING STRUCK OUT THE CASE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION IT WAS OBLIGATED TO TRANSFER IT TO THE HIGH COURT FOR ADJUDICATION AND DETERMINATION.
Decidedly, by Section 22(1) and (2) of the Federal High Court Act LFN 1990 now LFN 2004, the power of the Court to transfer a cause or matter to the appropriate High Court remain inviolate and intact PROFESSOR ABDULRAHEEM & 3 ORS. V. PROFESSOR ODULEYE & 5 ORS (2005) 3 NWLR (PT 926) PG. 144 @ 184. The learned trial Judge, should have transferred the matter to the High Court of the State of Lagos, having pronounced that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it, instead of striking it out.
This power she should have exercised suo motu, even if it was not urged on her. Per RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU J.C.A
