By O. G. Ogbom, Esq.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/2026-IDRI-Masterclass.png")
The law is well settled that the jurisdiction of a Court of law cannot be assumed or implied. It is generally donated by the Constitution or the enabling statute that established the court. Jurisdiction of a court is a fundamental and threshold issue in a proceeding and as such, it can be challenged at any time or stage even for the first time at the Supreme Court. The court in Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (PART 84) 508 At 520 C – E Per Obaseki JSC stated that:
“The issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the court or tribunal. If a court or tribunal is not competent to entertain a matter or claim or suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, matter or claim. It is, therefore, an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue of jurisdiction or competence determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter. The issue of jurisdiction being a fundamental issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings in the court of first instance or in the appeal courts.”
It is therefore necessary that a Court is clothed with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain a suit before it delves into the determination of the suit because once it is shown, by a party usually the Defendant, that a court of law or tribunal either before, during or after a proceeding, lacks the jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate on a matter the whole proceeding no matter how brilliantly conducted will be null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever.
A recent case on the issue of the preeminence of jurisdiction was the case of Ports & Cargo Handling Services Company Ltd v. Migfo Nigeria Ltd(2012) JELR 53694, decided by the Supreme Court. In that case, judgment was earlier given in favour of Migfo (the Respondent) at the Federal High Court and subsequently affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeal by the Appellant. On the Appellant’s further appeal to the Supreme Court, it was contended for it that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter ab initio. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appellant and struck out the suit on the ground that the subject matter was a simple contract and not an admiralty matter as erroneously conceived by the Federal High Court and the Court of Appeal which had earlier given judgements in favour of the Respondent. The Respondent was thereby compelled to go and start the case de novo at the High Court of Lagos State.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that once the issue of jurisdiction is raised before the court, it should be decided at the earliest stage of the proceedings in order to save the precious time of the court and before the merits of the case are considered and determined. See Abubarkar v. Usman (2009) 6 N.W.L.R. Pt. 1136 69 at pp. 93-94
However, “In determining whether a court has jurisdiction in a matter or not, the court will examine or consider the nature of summons and statement of claim.” See Abdul-Raheem V. Oloruntoba-Oju (2007) WRN (Vol. 2) 28 At 67 Lines 10 – 20, 71 – 72 Lines 30 – 25 (CA)
The Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
Section 230 of the Constitution established the Supreme Court of Nigeria. It is the highest court of the land and also the court of last resort. It comprises of the Chief justice of Nigeria and such other numbers of Justices not exceeding twenty as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly. Section 230(2). The Supreme Court has both Original Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction. It has exclusive original Jurisdiction in matters between the Federal Government and State(s) Government as well as on matters between States of the federation in so far as the dispute involves questions of law or fact. See Att. Gen. of Abia State v. Att. Gen. of the Federation (2003) LPELR-610(SC).
By the provisions of section 232(2) of the 1999 cfrn (as amended), the National Assembly has extended the Supreme Court’s Original jurisdiction to adjudicate on any disputes arising from law or facts between the National Assembly and the president; the National Assembly and any state House of Assembly; and the National Assembly and a state of the federation.
The Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court confers on it exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal. In other words, an appeal can only lie from the decisions of the Court Appeal to the Supreme Court. section 233 (5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
According to Section 233 (2) of the Constitution, an appeal in a dispute shall lie from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right for the following cases;
Where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, on decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Court of Appeal;
Decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or application of the Constitution;
Decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution has been, is been, or is likely to be contravened in relation to any person;
Decisions in any criminal proceedings in which any person has been sentenced to death by the Court of Appeal or in which the Court of Appeal has affirmed a sentence of death imposed by any other court;
Decisions on any questions-
Whether any person has been validly elected to the office of the President or Vice-President under the Constitution
Whether the term of the office of the President or Vice-President has ceased;
Whether the office of the President or Vice-President has become vacant and,
Any other cases as may be an Act of the National Assembly.
In considering the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the distinction between the “Federation” or “Federal Republic of Nigeria” on the one hand and “Government of the Federation” or “Federal Government” on the other hand, is very important because more frequently, these terms are erroneously being used interchangeably. Also, this distinction is equally important for the purpose of determining when to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
In A. G. Federation v. A. G. Anambra State [2018] 6 NWLR (Pt. 1615) 314 at 338, paras. G-H, the Plaintiff being the Attorney General of the Federation while invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court filed the instant suit against the Anambra State Government seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs in respect of a parcel of 148.337 hectares of land at Amansea, Awka North Local Government Area of Anambra State which he claimed was lawfully acquired by the Federal Government in 1992 but the rights therein were revoked by the Anambra State Government. It was clear from the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim that the land in question was granted by the Anambra State Government to the Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development in collaboration with the Incorporated Trustees of Association of Allotees of Federal Sites and Services Scheme, Amansea to whom parcels of land had been allotted to erect their homes. The Plaintiff claimed that the subsequent revocation by the Anambra State Government was wrongful and unlawful. The action was initiated at the Supreme Court on the basis that it is a dispute between Anambra State and the Federation in line with Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) which provides that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court to determine disputes between the Federation and a State or between States.
The Defendant filed an application challenging the competence of the suit on the ground that, based on the facts disclosed by the Plaintiff, there is no dispute between the Federation and the Anambra State Government to warrant the invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Their Lordships took time to consider the points raised. In resolving the issue, the Court defined the term, “Federation” as well as Government of the Federation. By a community reading of Sections 318 and 2(1) and (2) of the Constitution, the apex Court stated: “Simply put, the word Federation means Federal Republic of Nigeria, which presently consists of 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory called Abuja.”
In explaining how the above definition supplied helps in resolving the jurisdictional question posed by the Defendant/Applicant, per Okoro, JSC stated thus:
It must be noted that there is a clear difference between the “Federation” or “Federal Republic of Nigeria” on the one hand and “Government of the Federation” or “Federal Government”. Whereas the Federation refers to the federating units comprising of all the States and the Federal Capital Territory, the Federal Government or Government of the Federation refers to the Executive arm of the Government, which contrasts with the legislative powers and judicial powers domiciled in the National Assembly and the Judiciary respectively. See sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), see A. G. Kano State v. A. G. Federation (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1029) 164 at 184-185 paras. H-B.
“It follows that for a dispute to come within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the subject matter of the dispute must be a matter in which the interest of the Federation as a unit consisting of the interest of the thirty-six (36) States and the Federal Capital Territory is in issue. In the instant case, the interest of the thirty five other States (excluding Anambra State) and the Federal Capital Territory in the control over and development of the Amansea land in Anambra State must be paramount and clearly seen in the Statement of Claim.”
The Court held that the acts of Federal Government agencies are not captured under Section 232(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The Supreme Court struck out the case, hinting that the proper court for the Plaintiff to ventilate his grievances is the High Court of Anambra State in line with Section 39 (1) (a) and (2) of the Land Use Act, 1976.
The evaluation above, the case of A.G. Federation v A. G. Anambra State, has resolved all doubts that the act of the Agencies of Federal Government are resolved mostly at the Federal High Court and that the Supreme Court lacks the original jurisdiction to entertain such matters.
O.G. Ogbom, Esq is a Port Harcourt based lawyer, a Partner at Law Freight Attorneys. He can be reached via ogbomgoodluck@gmail.com.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
