Compulaw - 1st Indigenous Digital Law Library

Brief

Order of retrial by Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
Court raising issue suo motu
Federal High Court (amendment) Decree 107 0f 1993

Facts

Appellant commenced this action against the Respondent. In view of the issues raised in the appeal, it is considered necessary to state in this judgment the nature of the action that was commenced against the Respondent filed on the 13th day of January 1993 in the Kwara State High Court. Suffice it to say that during the pendency of the trial, the Decree No. 107 of 1993 was promulgated to take effect from 17th November 1993. Despite the enactment of this Decree which affected the jurisdiction of State High Courts to hear and determine actions filed against agencies and parastatals of the Federal Government, the trial of the matter before the Kwara State High Court continued unabated until judgment was delivered by the trial Judge on the 8th of May 1996. Now it is manifest from the printed record that none of the parties, and also the trial Court adverted to the changes brought about by Decree No. 107 with regard to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear and determine this action. At the end of the hearing, the learned trial Judge following the addresses of learned counsel delivered a considered judgment wherein the claims of the Plaintiff were upheld. As the Respondent to this appeal was dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, it appealed to the Court of Appeal sitting at Kaduna. The Appellant in couching its grounds of appeal touched upon and or raised the question as to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to hear and determine the action before it.

However, when the appeal was set up for hearing, briefs having been filed and exchanged, the Court of Appeal (Coram, Umaru Abdullahi P.J. (as he then was) Ogebe and Ige J.J.C.A) directed the attention of counsel to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to determine the matter on appeal. The Court then ordered as follows:-

"There is an issue that need to be considered. It is an issue of jurisdiction which need to be addressed by both counsel. The parties should go and consider the provisions of Decree No. 107 of 1993 as well as the provisions of the Federal High Court Act. We need to be addressed on this important issue."

The appeal was accordingly adjourned to the 23rd of February 1998 for counsel to address the Court. On the adjourned date, learned counsel for the parties duly addressed the Court as directed. After hearing counsel who also filed briefs of argument on the issue raised, the Court below delivered a considered judgment. Ige J.C.A who delivered the lead judgment after a careful review of the relevant cases and the provisions of Decree No.107 of 1993, Decree No. 60 of 1991 and Decree No. 16 of 1992, in conjunction with the provisions of the Federal High Court Act, concluded that the proceedings and judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge in respect of the action must be struck out as the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action. It is against this judgment that the Appellant has filed this appeal.

Issues

1
Whether the lower Courts lacked jurisdictions as a result of the...

Olutola V. Uni-Ilorin (2005) CLR 1(o) (SC)

Brief

Facts

Issues