JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN NIGERIA

LATEEF M.A*
1.0 Introduction
It is elementary law that jurisdiction is the superstructure upon which the judicial power of a court
of law is founded. In other words, jurisdiction is the life wire, the bedrock and foundation of all
judicial and even quasi-judicial proceedings. Consequently, any decision reached without
jurisdiction by a court of law or any tribunal is generally said to be null, void and of no legal effect
whatsoever.1 In a recent case of GTB v. Toyed (Nig) Ltd & Anor (2016)2 the Nigerian Court of
Appeal, per Ndukwe-Anyawu, J.C.A restated the elementary law thus:
The law is well settled and it no longer admits of any argument that
jurisdiction is the very basis and the life wire of every matter and on
which any Court tries or hears a case. It is, metaphorically
speaking, the life blood of all trials, whether it be at the Court of
trial or on appeal, and without which all such trials and hearings
are a nullity notwithstanding how well or meticulous such a trial or
proceeding had been conducted or how sound or profound the
resultant judgement. It is simply a nullity.3
The preeminence of jurisdiction as a sine qua non in all judicial proceedings is such that an
objection to jurisdiction can be raised at any time before, during and after a proceeding4 before the
same court or even for the first time on appeal at the higher courts, including the Supreme Court.5
Despite the clarity of the law on this point, it is still a well-entrenched daily practice in the Nigerian
courts, in both civil and criminal proceedings, to see cases raising issues of jurisdiction. Such cases
would thereby compel the defendant or an accused person to raise a preliminary objection to the
jurisdiction of court to hear or determine the cases. Sometimes, the objection may be raised suo
motu by the court. However such an objection is raised, it is also an elementary law that it must
first be resolved by the court one way or the other before the substantive proceeding is

* LATEEF M.A is a law teacher and Doctoral candidate in the Faculty of Law, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife,
Osun State, Nigeria. E: mail: malateef@oauife.edu.ng. Mobile: 08033955817.
1
See the case of All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) v. Senator Christiana N.D. Anyawnwu & 2 Ors. (2014) LPELR-
22182 (SC); SC 20/2013 (20114).
2
(2016) LPELR-4181 (CA).
3
Ibid, p. 20, paras A-D. See also several other earlier cases including Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 All NLR 581;
PetroJessica Enterprises Ltd v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd. (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt. 244) 693; Onuorah v Kaduna PRC Ltd
(2005) All FWLR (Pt. 256) 1356; Essien v. Essien (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 523) 1192.
4
Ordinarily, a court will not sit on appeal on a case it has already decided or a ruling it has given. However, one of
the well-recognised and very limited grounds upon which a court may reverse itself is where it made an order
without jurisdiction or where the order is fundamentally defective. See National Hospital Abuja & Ors v. National
Commission for Colleges of Education & Ors (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1418) 309 – 334; Lawrence S.U. Azuh v. Union Bank
of Nigeria Plc (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1419) 580; Okafor v. Okafor (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 677) p. 21; Skenconsult (Nig) Ltd
v. Ukey (1981) 1 S.C p. 6; Other grounds include fraud and non-service on the other party.
5
Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, supra; PetroJessica Enterprises Ltd v. Leventis Technical Co. Ltd., supra.

1
commenced.6 Indeed, the Supreme Court in Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012)7, per Adekeye JSC, held inter
alia, that an objection to jurisdiction or an application to strike out a suit for being incompetent on
the ground of jurisdiction is not a demurrer8 and therefore can be filed and taken even before the
defendant files his statement of defense or without even filling any defence at all. Furthermore, it
is a standard practice for lawyers that once an originating court process such as a writ of summon
is served on their clients and then passed on to them, one of the first things they do is to first search
through the process and examine the content with a view to discovering possible jurisdictional
loopholes by which they may quickly shut down the case of their opponents before the case gets
up at all. It is therefore due to the importance of jurisdiction that every court of law undertaking
judicial exercise or every tribunal exercising quasi-judicial function is required to ensure it has
jurisdiction to entertain the matter brought before it to avoid embarking on a futile exercise.
In this part, it is intended to examine the jurisdiction of various superior courts in Nigeria. This is
to help facilitate an overview understanding of the meaning and scope of their jurisdictions, as
well as the factors that endow them with or may rob them of such jurisdictions. The discussions
here, given the constraints of space and scope, will by no means be exhaustive of jurisdictions of
each court discussed. Inferior courts will not be specifically discussed but will be made reference
to in all appropriate context of discussing the superior courts.

1.1 Meaning of Jurisdiction

In simple terms, jurisdiction can be defined as the authority9 which a court possesses to determine
a case presented before it in the manner prescribed by law. As earlier noted, it is the foundation or
bedrock of all trials, the presence of which validates the commencement of any trial and the
absence of which also invalidates such a trial. The authority of a court to assume jurisdiction over
a case is generally determined by the enabling statute which creates the particular court and vests
it with specified jurdictions. In Arjay Ltd v. AIMS Ltd (2003) the court held that “Jurisdiction of
a court is a matter of law and it is vested on a court by the Constitution and the statute establishing

6
Abubakar & Ors v. Nasamu & Ors (2012) 5 SCM 1; A.G Adamawa State v. A.G Federation (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1428)
570.
7
(2012) All FWLR (Pt 634) 1 S.C, p. 30, para C.
8
Demurrer, to simply put, is a common law civil procedure and practice whereby a defendant, instead of filling a
defence (if any) to a claim against him as required by the rules of court, files an objection to the jurisdiction of the
court or on other ground stating in essence that the hearing of the substantive claim of the claimant be stayed or
delayed till after the hearing of his own objection. It should be noted that the rules of most courts in Nigeria, if not
all, have now abolished demurer. In other words, defendants are now generally required to file their defenses, if
any, alongside or prior to filing or raising any objection by way of demurer. See for examples: Order 24 Rule 1 of the
High Court (Uniform Civil Procedure) Rules 2004; Order 22 Rule 1 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004; and Order 22 Rule 1 of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012.
The Lagos High Court Rules simply declare “No demurrer shall be allowed.” However, a new practice or procedure
in lieu of demurrer now allowed under the various rules of courts is for a defendant to incorporate whatever point
of law or objection he may have in his pleading. See Order. 22 r. 2 (1) & (2) of the Lagos High Court Rules.
9
In Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited v. Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency & Ors (2002) 12 S.C (Pt. I) 26,
the Supreme Court defines jurisdiction “…as the authority, which a court has to decide matters that are litigated
before it or take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision.”

2
the court.”10 Further, jurisdiction has been described as the “…fulcrum, centrepin, or the main
pillar upon which the validity of any decision of any court stands and around which other issues
rotate. It cannot be assumed or implied, it cannot also be conferred by consent or acquiescence of
parties.”11 It follows, like we have earlier noted, that any exercise of judicial power without
jurisdiction is an exercise in futility.

1.2 Importance of Jurisdiction.

As earlier pointed out, the preeminence of the requirement of jurisdiction for validity of any
judicial proceeding is such that it can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal at the
Supreme Court. The essence of this preeminence was aptly captured by the Supreme Court in the
case of Galadima v. Tamba (2000) thus:
Issue on court’s jurisdiction is very pivotal and fundamental.
Because of its fundamental nature, on the authorities, it can be
raised at any state of the trial or even on appeal, and even before
the apex court. The reason for this latitude is obvious. A court that
lacked jurisdiction to entertain a suit, either as a trial or appellate
court, is incompetent to pronounce judgement in respect of any
aspect of the matter in controversy before it. Time never runs
against a court to decide on its jurisdiction. The consequence of a
court continuing a case where it lacks jurisdiction is, as it were, like
the court embarking on a frolic which could indisputably result in a
nullity for which the appellate court, so invited, would have no
compunction whatsoever to declare null and void. Jurisdiction
question, be it in civil or criminal matter, has the same devastating
consequence. An attack or question as to jurisdiction cannot be
properly glossed over by any court once it is raised by the defendant
or the respondent. The procedure by which such a fundamental issue
is raised may not be in consonance with the stipulated rules of court
for questioning a decision of court, nevertheless, that will never be
allowed to defeat the right to question the jurisdictional defect. To
do so is to unwittingly postpone the doom’s day…12
An interesting recent case on the issue of preeminence of jurisdiction was the case of Ports &
Cargo Handling Services Company Ltd v. Migfo Nigeria Ltd (2012)13 decided by the Supreme
Court. In that case, judgment was earlier given in favour Migfo (the Respondent) at the Federal
High Court and subsequently affirmed on appeal to the Court of Appeal by the Appellant. On
Appellant’s further appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended for it that the Federal High Court

10
(2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 820) 879
11
Shell Petroleum Development Company Nigeria Ltd v. Isaiah (2001), supra.
12
(2000) 6 S.C (Pt.1) 196 @ 206 – 207.
13
(2012) 18 NWLR (PT 1333) 555

3
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 (Migfo). The Respondent was
thereby compelled to go and start the case de novo at the High Court of Lagos State. Again, the
new case at the High Court has had to travel so far up to the Court of Appeal on yet another
objection based on the Limitation Law of Lagos State 2003.14

1.3 Types of Jurisdictions

Essentially, three types of judicial jurisdictions have been identified by legal scholars. They are:
personal, territorial and subject-matter jurisdictions. In Ibrahim v. INEC (1999)15 this
classification was somewhat echoed by the court in the following words: “There must be
jurisdiction on the subject matter and the person or an instrument establishing the court.” Personal
jurisdiction is the authority that a court of law exercises over persons regardless of the location of
such persons. For example, a High Court in Lagos State may make an order that will bind a
defendant in Kano State provided certain due process of law such as due service of the court
processes in Lagos State have been made on that defendant in Kano State or wherever he is.
Usually, the powers of a court to exercise jurisdiction over persons are contained in the statutes
and rules of courts. Territorial jurisdiction is the exercise of jurisdiction within a clearly defined
territory and over specified subject matter. This appears the most tenacious or common basis of
exercising jurisdiction both in civil and especially in criminal cases. Subject matter jurisdiction is
the authority over the subject of the legal questions given rise to the proceedings. For example,
only the High Court of a State in Nigeria has jurisdiction over the subject matter of a divorce
proceeding pursuant to the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 2004.16
Further, jurisdiction of courts can also be classified in terms of category or hierarchy of courts or
nature of subject matter. That is: original, appellate, concurrent and exclusive jurisdictions.
Original jurisdiction relates to the right of a court to be the court of first instance over a subject
matter or party. It must be noted that this jurisdiction is possible at any layer of court. For example,
there are cases for which only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction while there are others
where only a magistrate court, an inferior court, has an original jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction
relates to the supervisory role that a higher court exercises to review the judgement or proceedings
of a lower court. This jurisdiction is essentially reserved for higher courts in their appellate status.
Concurrent jurisdiction relates to where two different courts have same or similar power over a
subject matter and party such that neither may bind or overrule the other over the same subject or
party. For example, two different high courts of different states have equal and concurrent

14
Sifax Nigeria Ltd. v. Migfo Nigeria Ltd. [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 803) 1857; (2015) LPELR-24655 (CA) (the SIFAX case).
After the Respondents (Migfo) in the earlier case at the Supreme Court filed a fresh suit at the High Court of Lagos
State the Defendants (now called Sifax) again challenged the suit on the ground that it was statute-barred pursuant
to Section 8 (1) (b) of Lagos State Limitation Law.
15
(1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 614) 334 @ 341.
16
CAP. M7 L.F.N. 2004

4
jurisdiction by hierarchy of courts in Nigeria. Similarly, the federal high court generally has similar
or concurrent jurisdiction with the state high courts. Exclusive jurisdiction relates to the right of a
court over a subject matter or party to the exclusion of other courts. This power, it must be noted,
is common to all category of courts based on their specific exclusive jurisdictions on certain
subjects under the statutes and rules of court. Thus, there are cases where only a magistrate court,
a high court of a state, the federal high court, the court of appeal and even the supreme court may
exercise exclusive jurisdiction.

1.4. Components of Jurisdiction of Courts

For a court to assume jurisdiction over any case it must first be competent to do so. A court is said
to be competent or said to possess jurisdiction when certain prerequisite conditions are present.
The preeminence of these prerequisite is underscored by the fact that once any one of them is
missing then the court would be incompetent. This is why once the jurisdiction of the court is
challenged, it must be considered first before any other consideration. The Supreme Court in the
case of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962)17, supra enumerated the basic components of jurisdiction
of the court to comprise when:

(a) the court is properly constituted with respect to number and qualification of its
members;

(b) the subject-matter of the action is within the jurisdiction of the court; and

(c) the action is initiated by due process of the law, or that any condition precedent to the
exercise of the court’s jurisdiction has been fulfilled.

Further to the above three primary conditions enumerated by the Supreme Court, there are also
other components of jurisdiction that can either be distilled from the three above or established on
their own to further guide the court. They are:

i) Statute establishing the court and what it states as the jurisdiction of the court;

ii) Composition of the court;

iii) The subject matter of the action;

iv) Parties before the court;

v) Procedure by which the action is commenced;

vi) Conditions precedent, if any, to commencement of the particular action;18

17
(1962) 1 ALL NLR (Pt. 4) 557, per Baramian JSC.
18
Typically, such a condition precedent will include the question of whether or not a pre-action notice is required or
given as may be necessary. The Supreme Court has adjudicated on several matters involving pre-action notices and
held them to be sacrosanct condition precedent to conferment on jurisdiction on courts. See Mobil Producing Nigeria
Unlimited v. Lagos State Environmental Protection Agency & Ors (2002) 12 S.C (Pt. I) 26.

5
 vii) Due service of court processes in accordance with stated law and procedure;

viii) Whether or not the action is within the territorial jurisdiction of the relevant court.

All of the above components, it is submitted, operate concurrently and must all be met before a
court can be said to be competent to exercise its jurisdiction in a case or over the litigants. In a
latter case of Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989), the Supreme Court restated and
summarized the above essential components of jurisdiction thus:

There are two essential and primary aspects to the jurisdiction of a

court. These are:

(a) The legal capacity, the power and authority of a court to

adjudicate concerning the particular subject matter in
controversy.

(b) The geographical area in which the legal jurisdiction of the

court can be exercised. This area of authority is called the area
of geographical or venue.

Both are important when one is considering the concept of

jurisdiction and both must co-exist in any particular case to
complete the circuit of jurisdiction.

Once a defendant raises objection as to the non-compliance with a condition precedent to the
exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, it is for the court seized of the proceedings to examine the
objection to ascertain whether it can adjudicate. The court cannot side track such an objection. The
Supreme Court has unequivocally held that any defect in competence is fatal, for the proceedings
are a nullity however well conducted and decided. In determining the jurisdiction of a superior
court with respect to the subject matter of dispute before it, it is settled law that it is the examination
of the claims of the Plaintiff in relation to the constitutional as well as statutory provision
establishing the court that will determine whether or not a particular court has the requite
jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. For the purpose of examining the claims of the Plaintiff
it is the originating process filed before the court, such as a writ of summons or an originating
summons, that recourse will be made to. In Federal Government of Nigeria v. Oshiomhole (2004)
the Court of Appeal restated the law thus:

It is the claim before the Court, particularly the reliefs being sough
by the Plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the court. Thus, in
determining whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter before it, the materials to consider are the statement
of claim, the writ of summons and the particulars of claim where
they are filed along with the writ of summons.19

19
(2004) 3 NWLR (Pt.860) 305 at 341

6
Similarly, in the case of Attorney General of the Federation v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (1999)
the Supreme Court held as follows:

It is the claim of the Plaintiff which determines the jurisdiction of

the Court. This is because it is the Plaintiff who invokes the
constitutional right for a determination of his rights and
accordingly, the exercise of the judicial powers.20

Also, in Babale v. Abdulkadir (1993) the Court held that:

The Court is competent to exercise jurisdiction whenever the subject

matter of the claim is within the jurisdiction of the court and the
court is properly constituted in its composition and the qualification
of its members and there is no extrinsic factor affecting its
jurisdiction.21

2.0 Establishment and Classification of Courts

The judicial powers of courts to adjudicate on civil and criminal rights and liabilities of persons
and other litigants are generally provided under section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria (as amended).22 The provision of section 6 of the Constitution, in furtherance
of the provision of section 4 which divides the legislative powers of the country between the
National Assembly for the Federation and the State Houses of Assembly for the States, establishes
courts for the Federation23 and courts for the States.24 However, the courts established for the
Federation and those established for the States are all referred to as superior courts of record under
section 6(3) of the Constitution. Aside the Constitution, the next source of authority for the
establishment and functioning of courts in Nigeria is the respective statutes establishing them. That
is, each of the superior courts of record or Tribunals is also established either by an Act of the
National Assembly in respect of the courts of the Federation or a Law of the House of Assembly
in respect of the courts established for the States. According to Obilade, courts in Nigeria may be
classified in several ways but the most important forms of classifications are ‘superior courts’ of
record and ‘inferior courts’.25

20
(1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) 187 at 233
21
(1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 281) 254. See also Olubukola Saraki v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1500) SC
531
22
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Cap C23, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004 (as
amended).
23
Ibid, section 6 (1). This section simply vests the judicial powers of the Federation in the courts established for the
Federation pursuant to the powers of the National Assembly under section 4 (1)(2)(3) & (4) of the constitution.
24
Ibid, section 6 (2). This section also vests the judicial powers of the States of the Federation in the courts
established for the States pursuant to the powers of the States Houses of Assembly under section 4 (6) & (7) of the
constitution.
25
A.O. Obilade, The Nigerian Legal System (fist published 1979, London: Sweet & Maxwell) p.160

7
2.1 Superior Courts of Record
Superior courts of record are courts expressly named and established by section 6(5)(a) – (k) of
the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Aside from being directly named in the Constition, superior
courts of record have also been so described for following reasons. One, each of the superior courts
of record or Tribunals is also established either by an Act of the National Assembly in respect of
the courts for the Federation such as the Federal High Court or by a Law of the House of Assembly
in respect of the courts established for the States such as a High Court of a State. Two, each of the
superior courts of record or Tribunals also has its peculiar rules of procedure. For examples, High
Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004; High Court of Lagos
State (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012. These Rules of Civil Procedure have been made by the
respective chief judge of each court pursuant to their powers under the enabling Act or Law
establishing the courts.26
Although superior courts of record are often thought to be courts of ‘unlimited jurisdiction’,27 this
is not actually the case in the strict sense of that description. The courts do have limited scope of
jurisdictions and spheres of authority. Indeed, there is no court under the laws of Nigeria without
some limit to its jurisdiction, not even the Supreme Court as the final court in the country.
According to Obilade, “but superior courts are so described because the limits to their jurisdiction
are minimal. They have minimal jurisdictional limits with respect to the type of subject-matter but
they are not limited in jurisdiction with respect to the mere value of the subject-matter of a case.”28
Further, the word “record” in the description of superior courts traditionally denotes two things.
Firstly, that a superior court was a court which kept a written record of its acts and proceedings.
Secondly, that it is was a court with powers to punish a person for contempt committed in the face
of the court (in facie curia) or outside the court (ex facie curia). However, the record keeping
component now has little or no relevance as all courts, whether superior or inferior, now keep
records of their acts and proceedings. Also, on the powers to punish a person for contempt
committed in the face of the court and outside the court, all courts, whether superior or inferior,

26
See for example, section 89 (1) of the High Court Law, Cap. H3 Laws of Lagos State 2003 as amended by High Court
(Amendment Law) 2012.
27
The idea of an “unlimited jurisdiction” itself came from the common law systems in relation to superior courts in
England. That is, a court of general competence which typically has ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ with regard to civil and
criminal legal cases. A superior court is thus said to have an unlimited jurisdiction relative to an inferior or lower
court with limited jurisdiction on subject-matter of a case, restrictions involving monetary amounts in a case, or
criminal cases involving offenses of a less serious nature. The courts in Nigeria have consistently interpreted the
term ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ to mean a mere descriptive expression that vest a court with authority to entertain In
the case of Enugwu v. Okefi (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 650) 620 the jurisdiction of the High Court was interpreted to be
limited notwithstanding the description of ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ under section 236 of the 1979 Constitution.
However, there is no such description as ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ under section 270 of the present 1999 Constitution
(as amended) which establishes the High Court of a State.
28
A.O. Obilade, supra, p. 169

8
have the powers for such punishment under their enabling statutes, but only a superior court may
summarily29 punish a contemnor for contempt committed out of the court.30
The superior courts of record and Tribunals directly established by section 6(5) of the 1999
Constitution (as amended) are as follows:
(a) the Supreme Court of Nigeria;
(b) the Court of Appeal;
(c) the Federal High Court;
(cc) the National Industrial Court;31
(d) the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;
(e) a High Court of a State
(f) the Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;
(g) a Sharia Court of Appeal of a State;
(h) the Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja;
(i) a Customary Court of Appeal of a State;
(j) such other courts as may be authorized by law to exercise jurisdiction on matters with respect
to which the National Assembly may make laws;32

2.2 Inferior Courts

Inferior courts, on the other hands, are courts other than superior courts of record as may be
established by an Act of the National Assembly or a Law of a House of Assembly of a State to
exercise jurisdiction in the first instance or on appeal in matters over which the National Assembly
or a House of Assembly may make laws.33 They are courts over which a High Court of a State or
that of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, as the case may be, typically has supervisory
or appellate jurisdictions. Inferior courts include the following:
(i) Magistrates courts
29
This simply means that a superior court of record can punish a contemptnor for contempt committed outside the
court without the presentation of a formal charge. Before an inferior court can convict a person for contempt
committed out of the court there must be a formal charge in respect therefor.
30
Similarly, the power of a superior court to punish a contemptnor for contempt committed in the face of the court
is preserved by section
31
The National Industrial Court (NIC), it must be noted, was only introduced into the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
as a superior court of record pursuant to the provision of section 254A – 254F of Constitution of the federal Republic
of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010.
32
This sub-section relates generally to other courts that may be established from time to by the Acts of the National
Assembly on matters over which they may legislate.
33
Section 6 (5) (K) 1999 Constitution (as amended.)

9
 (ii) Customary courts
(iii) Area courts
(iv) Shari’ah Courts
(v) Special Offence Courts or Tribunals
(vi) Rent Tribunals

3.0 Superior Courts of Record

3.1 The Supreme Court of Nigeria (Ss. 230 – 236)
The Supreme Court of Nigeria is the apex in hierarchy of court of law in Nigeria with final
authority on the exercise of the judicial powers of the federation. The finality34, albeit without
infallibility, of the Supreme Court’s authority had been aptly captured in the eternal words of late
Justice Chukwudifu Oputa, JSC in the case of Adegoke Motors v Adesanya (1983)35 thus: “We
are final not because we are infallible, rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of
this Court are human beings capable of erring. It will be short sighted arrogance not to accept
this obvious truth.” The Court is the only supreme court in the entire federation of Nigeria.
Although the Court only sits in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, “there is no provision in the
Constitution of any statute that prohibits the Supreme Court from sitting or holding session outside
Abuja or any of the States of Nigeria.”36

3.1.1 Establishment
The Supreme of Nigeria was originally established under the Republican Constitution of 1963.37
The 1963 Constitution had provided that the judges of the court are the Chief Justice of Nigeria
and such number of other judges known as the justices of the Supreme Court.38 In the subsequent
Constitutions, the most prominent of which have been that of the 197939 and the present of 1999,
the position of law with respect to the status of the Supreme Court has not been different. Presently,
the Supreme Court of Nigeria is established by section 230 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as
amended) which simply provides that “There shall be a Supreme Court of Nigeria.”. Further to
the primary provisions of the Constition which establish the Court, there is also the Supreme Court
Act 200440 which makes specific provisions in terms of the structure, composition, jurisdiction

34
The finality of the authority of the Court has been preserved under section 235 of the 1999 Constitution thus:
‘Without prejudice to the powers of the President or of the Governor of a state with respect to prerogative of mercy,
no appeal shall lie to any other body or person from any determination of the Supreme Court.’
35
(1983)3 NWLR (Pt 109) 250 @ 274-275.
36
Lawal Pedro, Jurisdiction of Courts in Nigeria: Materials and Cases (1st edn, Lagos State Ministry of Justice Law
Review Series 2006) 19.
37
N.N. Laws 1963, Cap. 89
38
Ibid, s. 111 (2).
39
The Supreme Court was established by section 212 of the 1979 Constitution which is in pari material with section
232 of the present 1999 Constitution.
40
Supreme Court Act CAP. 424 LFN 1990; CAP. S15 L.F.N. 2004

10
and administration of the Court amongst others. For example, the powers of the Chief Justice of
Nigeria to make rules for procedure of the Court is derived under the Act.41

3.1.2 Composition
Section 230 (2) provides thus on the composition of the Supreme Court:
(2) The Supreme Court of Nigeria shall consist of –
(a) the Chief Justice of Nigeria; and
(b) such number of Justices of the Supreme Court, not exceeding twenty-one, as may be
prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
Whilst the Constitution provides for a maximum of 2142 justices for full complement of the Court’s
Justices, there is no any requirement of law and practice that all of the Justices must sit over a case
for the Court to be properly constituted. Thus, depending on the nature of the issue before the
court, the standard quorum of the Court is a panel of not less than 5 justices in respect of matters
in its general appellate jurisdiction43 and a panel of not less than 7 justices in respect of matters
relating to its original jurisdiction or for consideration of an appeal from the decision of the court
of appeal on question of interpretation of the Constition or on any matter relating to the issues of
rights under the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution.44 There are presently (as at January,
2018) a total of 17 Justices of the Supreme Court including Hon. Justice Walter Samuel Nkanu
Onnoghen as the Chief Justice of Nigeria.

3.1.3 Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Nigeria is essentially dual. Original and appellate
jurisdiction.

41
Ibid, ss. 7 & 10. See particularly section 236 of the 1999 Constitution which provides thus: ‘Subject to the provisions
of any Act of the National Assembly, the Chief Justice of Nigeria may make rules for regulating the practice and
procedure of the Supreme Court.’
42
The inability of the Supreme Court to have the maximum numbers of the 21 justices allowed by the 1999
Constitution under section 230(2)(b), in spite of complaints of workload of cases and slow dispensation of cases, has
always been a source of great concern for stakeholders. It is often thought, and rightly so, that if the Supreme Court
cannot expand its personnel and space to enhance its efficiency, it should at least enjoy the maximum number of
justices allowed it under the Constitution. Meanwhile the maximum21-maximum number of Justices of Supreme
Court permitted under 1999 Constitution is actually an improvement on the maximum 15 permitted under the
previous section 210 of the 1979 Constition.
43
Ibid, s. 234 provides that ‘for the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it by this Constitution or
any Law, the Supreme Court shall be duly constituted if it consists of not less than five Justices of the Supreme Court.’
44
Ibid, s. 234. The proviso to that section provides thus: ‘Provided that where the Supreme Court is sitting to consider
an appeal brought under 233(2)(b) or (c) of this Constitution, or to exercise its original jurisdiction in accordance
with section 232 of this Constitution, the Court shall be constituted by seven Justices.’

11
 (a) (i) Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
This is the jurisdiction that only the Supreme Court exercises to the exclusion of all other courts
in the land. Section 232 of the 1999 Constitution provides thus:
232. (1) The Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have
original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Federation and a state or
between states if and in so far as that dispute involves any question (whether
of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.
(2) In addition to the jurisdiction conferred upon it by subsection (1) of this
section, the Supreme Court shall have such original jurisdiction as may be
conferred upon it by any Act of the National Assembly.
Provided that no original jurisdiction shall be conferred upon the Supreme
Court with respect to any criminal matter.
From the above provision of the Constitution, it is crystal clear that the original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court may only be invoked by the Federal Government of Nigeria (on behalf of the
Federation) against the States or a State or the States or a State against the Federation or a State
against another State or the States among themselves, where any dispute on question of law or fact
arises. It follows therefore that the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction on dispute
among persons or institutions against the government or government against persons or
institutions. Indeed, in the case of Att. Gen. of Abia State v. Att. Gen. of the Federation (2002)45
where 37 Local Government Chairmen as representatives of all Chairmen of Local Governments
in Nigeria had sought to be joined as co-defendants in a case brought by the Abia State
Government, the Supreme Court refused their application for joinder in the following words:
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction under section 232 (1) of the 1999
Constitution to determine any dispute at first instance, between the Local
Governments and their respective State Governments. In this case, the
application filed by the 37 Chairmen representing all the Chairmen of Local
Governments in Nigeria to be joined as co-defendants is incompetent.
Similarly, in the case of Att. Gen. of the Federation v. Att. Gen. of Lagos State (2011)46 the
Supreme Court upheld the preliminary objection filed by Lagos State Government and struck out
the case of the Federal Government on the ground that the Federal Government had already
transferred its title in the land subject matter of their dispute to a third party. In other words, the
court held that it lacked original jurisdiction since a third party, and not the Federal Government,
held the title in the land subject matter of their dispute.
In the case of Att. Gen. of the Federation v. Att. Gen. Abia State & Ors (2001), the then Chief
Justice of Nigeria, Mohammed Law Uwais, JSC who delivered the majority decision of the Court
aptly interpreted the provision of section 232 of the 1999 Constitution thus:

45
(2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264 @ 367-377
46
Suit No SC/50/2011

12
 To invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, there must be a
dispute as so qualified between the federation and a State. Dispute is the
act of argue against, controversy, debate, argument, disagreement,
contention as to right, claims and the like or a matter of opinion. As in
accordance with established principle of the interpretation of the
constitution that the words of a constitution are not to be read with
stultifying narrowness, the word ‘dispute’ in section 232 (1) of the 1999
Constitution should be given such meaning that will effectuate rather than
defeat the purpose of that section of the constitution.
In interpretation of the above provision, the Supreme Court have also consistently held that only
justiciable dispute with substantial question of law or fact to be resolved may form the basis of
invoking the original jurisdiction of the Court. Thus, non-justiciable or mere academic or
hypothetical questions will not be entertained by the Court. In Lt. Bamaiyi v. Att. Gen Federation
& Ors (2001)47, Iguh JSC held thus:
In this regard, the court has repeatedly made the point that where a question
before the court is entirely academic, speculative or hypothetical, the
appellate court in accordance with well-established principles must decline
to decide such a point.
(a) (ii) Additional Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Pursuant to the provision of section 232(2) of the 1999 Constitution cited above, the National
Assembly in April 2002 enacted the Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act No 3
of 2002 vesting the Supreme Court with the additional original jurisdiction. Sections 1, 2 & 3 of
the Act provides thus:
1.(1) In addition to the original jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme
Court of Nigeria by section 232 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, the Supreme
Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in
any dispute between-
(a) the National Assembly and the President;
(b) the National Assembly and any State House of Assembly; and
(c) the National Assembly and a State of the Federation in so far as that
dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence
or extent of a legal right depends.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as conferring Original Jurisdiction

upon the Supreme Court with respect to any criminal matter.

2. The provisions of the Schedule to this Act applies with respect to matters
provided therein.

47
(2001) 7 S.C (Pt. 11) 62. See also the earlier cases of Att. Gen. of Bendel State v. Att. Gen. of the Federation (1981)
12 NSCC 314; Att. Gen. of Ondo State v. Att. Gen. of the Federation (1983) 2 SCNLR 269; Att. Gen. of Imo State v. Att.
Gen. of the Federation (1982) 13 NSCC 567; Nkwocha v. Gov. Anambra State (1984) 6 S.C. 302.

13
 3. Section 20 of the Supreme Court Act is amended to the extent that in any
such suit by or against-
(a) the National Assembly; or
(b) a State House of Assembly,
the nominal party in the case of-
(i) National Assembly is the National Assembly;
(ii) a State House of Assembly is the Speaker of the State House of
Assembly, as stated in this Act.

In exercise of the additional original jurisdictions provided above, the Schedule to the Act clearly
provides that neither the National Assembly nor a State House of Assembly shall institute or
initiate any such legal proceedings except a simple majority resolution of the members of the
respective house present and sitting at the time has been duly passed. Specifically, on National
Assembly, it is also provided that the National Assembly shall not institute or initiate any legal
proceedings except such a simple majority resolution of each of the two chambers has been duly
passed. It follows consequently that neither of the two chambers of the National Assembly can
independently institute or initiate a legal proceeding in its own name. It has to be the National
Assembly as an institution and not the Senate or the House of Representatives individually.48

For the invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, it should be noted that only
the Attorneys-General of the Federation and those of the States are persons conferred with the
powers to sue or be sued on behalf of their respective governments. In the case of the National
Assembly it is the National Assembly in its name as such, and in the case of a House of Assembly,
it is the Speaker of the House as nominal party for and on behalf of that House. However, the
Supreme Court has noted in the case of Plateau State of Nigeria and Anor v. Attorney General
of the Federation and Anor (2006)49 that commencement or institution of a suit erroneously in
the name of a state instead of using the title of the Attorney General of the state or the House of
Assembly of instead of the using the title of the Speaker of the House is a mere irregularity that is
not fatal to the competence of the suit. According to Justice Idris Legbo Kutiji, JSC, who gave the
lead judgment in that case, such irregularity is clearly procedural and should be waived or
overlooked since the State or the House of Assembly as the case may be are the principal parties
while the Attorney General or the Speaker of the House of Assembly are nominal parties.
(b) Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
This is the general superior, supervisory and final exercise of the authority of the Supreme Court
of Nigeria over all other courts below it in all civil and criminal cases. Accordingly, section 233
(5) & (6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides thus:
(5) Any right of appeal to the supreme Court from the decisions of
the Court of Appeal conferred by this section shall be exercisable in
the Case of civil proceedings at the instance of a party thereto, or

48
See generally section 3 Supreme Court (Additional Original Jurisdiction) Act No 3 of 2002.
49
(2006) 1 All N.L.R 304; [2006] NGSC 39.

14
 with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court at the
instance of any person having an interest in the matter, and in the
case of criminal proceedings at the instance of an accused person, or
subject to the provisions of this Constitution and any powers
conferred upon the Attorney-General of the Federation or the
Attorney-General of a state to take over and continue or to
discontinue such proceedings, at the instance of such other
authorities or persons as may be prescribed.
From the above clear provision of the Constition, certain points are generally discernible. One, an
appeal in civil cases may only lie from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court in all civil and
criminal cases. Thus, in the order of hierarchy of courts, there cannot be a direct right of appeal
directly to the Supreme Court from any other court below the court of appeal.50 An appeal to the
Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal by any dissatisfied party is primarily a matter of personal
right of such a party.51 Three, a non-party but interested person52 may also by leave of the Court
of Appeal or the Supreme Court file an appeal. Fourth, in the case of a criminal proceedings, by
an accused person personally or through anyone at his instance, subject to the powers of the Nolle
proseque powers of the Attorney General of the Federation or that of the State to take over and
continue or discontinue such criminal proceedings.
On the issue of timing and other procedures for filling of appeal at the Supreme Court, section 233
(6) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provides thus:
(6) Any right of appeal to the Supreme Court from the decisions of
the Court of Appeal conferred by this section shall, subject to section
236 of this Constitution, be exercised in accordance with any Act of
the National Assembly and rules of court for the time being in force
regulating the powers, practice and procedure of the Supreme Court.
In furtherance of the above provision, the Supreme Court Act makes provisions with respect to
such issues of time and other procedures. For example, section 27 (2) (a) and (b) of the Act that an
appeal against a final decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court shall be filled not later
than 3 months after such a final decision; 14 days in case of an interlocutory appeal. Further, an
appeal against a final decision in a criminal proceeding is to be filed within 30 days. Section 27
(4) of the Act also gives the Supreme Court the power to extend the time within which the above
act or any other act could be performed.

50
This is a general position of the law and there are few exceptions to be considered subsequently in this discussion.
51
A party is a person involved in the proceedings at the court below.
52
The courts have consistently held that an interested person is a person whose interest may be affected by the
outcome or consequence of a proceedings conducted in his absence and who may then be allowed to partake in the
proceedings or question the outcome as the case may be. See Ogundiani v. Araba (1978) 6-7 SC 55.

15
3.2 The Court of Appeal (ss. 237 – 249)
The Nigerian Court of Appeal is the next to the Supreme Court in order of hierarchy of courts in
Nigeria. It a superior court of record with supervisory and superior authority over all other courts
below it. And there is none at par with it.

3.2.1 Establishment
The Nigerian Court of Appeal was first established on October 1st, 1976 as a Federal Court of
Appeal by the Constitution of the Federation.53 The title Federal Court of Appeal was also retained
under section 217 of the 1979 Constitution. Under the provision of section 237 of the current 1999
Constitution (as amended) the court is simply referred to as Court of Appeal. However, since
Nigeria is still a federation, it is granted that the Court is a federal court for all practical purposes,
this is even so that the Nigerian federation does not have appeal court in the mould of the present
Court of Appeal at the level of the federating units – the States.

3.2.2 Composition
On the composition of the justices of the Court of Appeal, section 237 of the 1999 Constitution
(as amended) provides thus:
237. (1) There shall be a Court of Appeal.
(2) The Court of Appeal shall consist of - (a) a President of the Court
of Appeal; and
(b) such number of Justices of the Court of Appeal, not less than
forty-nine of which not less than three shall be learned in Islamic
personal law, and not less than three shall be learned in Customary
law, as may be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
From the above provision of the Constitution, the Court of Appeal is presided over by a President
and such other number of Justices not less than 4954 in all. However, three each of such minimum
number of 49 Justices must be learned in Islamic personal law55 and in Customary law.56 The

53
Constitution of the Federation 1976 amended by the Constitution (Amendment) (No 2) Decree No 42 of 1976.
54
Under the 1979 Constitution, section 217 (2) (b) merely prescribed that the number of the Justices of the Court
shall not be less than 15, meaning it could be just anything beyond 15 or more than the present minimum of 49
prescribed under the 1999 Constitution. Indeed, there are presently (as at January 2018) 15 divisions of Court of
Appeal across different States or geopolitical zones of Nigeria and a total of 78 Justices including Hon. Justice Zainab
Adamu Bulkachuwa as the President of the Court.
55
Issues of Islamic 'personal law’ or ‘matters of Muslims’ as guaranteed under the provision of section 277(2) (c) of
the 1999 Constitution (as amended) relates to such issues as infants, waqf (endowment or charitable trusts), gifts,
will or succession, marriage, endowment, and donor affecting Muslims and does not under whatever guise extend
to penal laws.
56
Section 274 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).

16
headquarter of the Court of Appeal is in Abuja where the President ordinarily sits and presides.
There are also presently (as at January 2018) 15 divisions of the Court of Appeal across different
States or geopolitical zones of Nigeria with a total of 78 Justices including Hon. Justice Zainab
Adamu Bulkachuwa as the President of the Court.

3.2.3 Jurisdiction
From the clear provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal can be
clearly divided into two namely: original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. Prior to coming
into force of the 1999 Constitution on 29th May, 1999, the Court of Appeal only had an appellate
jurisdiction and had no original jurisdiction on any matter whatsoever. However, like the Supreme
Court of Nigeria, the Court of Appeal has no original jurisdiction in respect of any criminal cause
whatsoever.

3.2.3 (a) Original Jurisdiction.

On the original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, section 239 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution
(as amended) provides thus:
239. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Court of
Appeal shall, to the exclusion of any other court of Law in Nigeria,
have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any question as to
whether –
(a) any person has been validity elected to the office of President or
Vice-President under this Constitution; or
(b) the term of office of the President or Vice-President has ceased;
or
(c) the office of President or Vice-President has become vacant.
(2) In the hearing and determination of an election petition under
paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, the Court of Appeal
shall be duly constituted if it consists of at least three Justices of the
Court Appeal.
The Court of Appeal sitting as the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal has the original
jurisdiction, as the Court of first instance, to determine any of the above issues. In other words,
only the Court of Appeal while sitting as the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal has the
exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine election petition and other related matters
concerning the office of the president or vice president and any question as to whether such offices
have become vacant. For the regulation of its sitting as such, there are clear provisions of the

17
Electoral Act 201057 (as amended) on the practice and procedure of the Court in that respect.58 In
the case of Attorney-General of the Federation v. Abubakar (2007)59 the Court of Appeal
exercised its original jurisdiction under section 239 (1)(c) and held, amongst others, that the office
of the then Vice-President, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, remained occupied by him until May 29, 2007
when the tenure of his office will ordinarily expire. The then President Olusegun Obasanjo had
declared the seat vacant on the grounds including that the Vice-President decamped from the PDP,
the political party the elected him into power, into the ACN, an opposition party. The then Vice-
President then approached the Court of Appeal for determination of the issue. In the case of
Obasanjo v. Yusuf (2004)60 the Court affirmed the general original jurisdiction of the Court thus:
The court of appeal as the presidential election petition tribunal has
original jurisdiction to hear and determine presidential election
petition vide section 239 (1) of the constitution and consequently to
hear all matters related to the election.

3.2.3 (b) Appellate Jurisdiction.

In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the section 240 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
provides thus:
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Court of Appeal
shall have jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court of law in
Nigeria, to hear and determine appeals from the Federal High Court,
the High Court of the Federation Capital Territory, Abuja, High
Court of a state, Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja, Sharia Court of Appeal of a state, Customary
Court of Appeal of a state and from decisions of a court martial or
other tribunals as may be prescribed by an Act of the National
Assembly.
By the above provision, it is crystal clear that appeals shall lie from all the listed courts to the Court
of Appeal directly. By necessary implications therefore, the Court of Appeal is superior to and
exercises appellate jurisdiction over all the courts. However, appeal from any of the courts to the
Court of Appeal may be either as of right or with the leave of the same court or the Court of Appeal.
Section 241 of the Constitution also makes clear provision for the various instances where appeal
will lie as of right or with leave of court.

57
The Electoral (Amendment) Act, No.2, 2010 repealed the Electoral Act No. 2, 2006 and the Independent
National Electoral Commission Act, Cap. 15, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and enacted the Electoral Act,
2010 to regulate the conduct of Federal, State and Area Council elections; and for related matters.
58
More will be discussed on this below under Election Petition Tribunals.
59
(2007) ALL FWLR, (PT 375)1264 AT 1289 (CA). See also S.C. 31/2007 where the Supreme Court subsequently upheld
the judgement of the Appeal Court in the case.
60
(2004) 9 NWLR (Pt. 877) 144

18
An appeal shall lie as of right from decisions of the Federal High Court or a High Court to the
Court of Appeal as of right in the following cases provided for under section 241 (1) of the
Constitution:
(a) final decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings before the Federal High Court or a
High Court sitting at first instance;
(b) where the ground of appeal involves questions of law alone, decisions in any civil or
criminal proceedings;
(c) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to the interpretation or
application of this Constitution;
(d) decisions in any civil or criminal proceedings on questions as to whether any of the
provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be,
contravened in relation to any person;
(e) decisions in any criminal proceedings in which the Federal High Court or a High Court
has imposed a sentence of death;
(f) decisions made or given by the Federal High Court or a High Court –
(i) where the liberty of a person or the custody of an infant is concerned,
(ii) where an injunction or the appointment of a receiver is granted or refused,
(iii) in the case of a decision determining the case of a creditor or the liability of a
contributory or other officer under any enactment relating to companies in respect of
misfeasance or otherwise,
(iv) in the case of a decree nisi in a matrimonial cause or a decision in an admiralty
action determining liability, and
(v) in such other cases as may be prescribed by any law in force in Nigeria.
Furthermore, sections 244 (1), 245 (1) and 246 (1) clear specificity different circumstances under
which appeals may lie to the Court of Appeal as of rights a Sharia Court of Appeal, Customary
Court of Appeal and the Code of Conduct Tribunal respectively.
An appeal shall also lie by leave either of the Court of Appeal or from the court being appealed
from under several circumstances provided for under section 242 of the Constitution generally.
For example, an appeal shall lie from the decisions of Court Martial established under the
provisions of the Armed Forces Act61 to the Court of Appeal with leave the court martial and if
refused, with leave of the Court of Appeal as the case may be. However, where the decision
involves a sentence of death, the appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal as of right. In The Nigerian
Air Force v. Wing Commander Shekete (2002)62 the court held thus:
By virtue of the combined provision of sections 182, 187, 190 and
202 of the Armed Forces Decree No 105 of 1993 (as amended), an
appeal lies from the decision of a court martial to the Court of
Appeal with the leave of the Court of Appeal. However, where the

61
ARMED FORCES (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS) (SPECIAL PROVISIONS) ACT CAP.22 L.F.N. 1990; CAP. A 22 L.F.N.
2004.
62
(2002) 12 S.C (Pt 11) 52

19
 decision of a court martial involves a sentence of death, the appeal
lies as of right without leave of the Court of Appeal.
Finally, for the purpose of exercising its jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or an any
other law, section 247 (1) of the Constitution provides that the Court of Appeal shall be duly
constituted if it consists of not less than three Justices of the Court of Appeal sitting together at
one. And in the cases of appeals from the Sharia Court of Appeal and Customary Court of Appeal,
if it consists of not less than three Justices of the Court of Appeal learned in Islamic personal law
and customary law respectively. But by the provision of section 10 of the Court of Appeal Act,63
a single Justice of the Court has the jurisdiction to exercise any power vested in the Court other
than the power of final determination of any cause or matter before the Court.

3.3 The Federal High Court (ss. 249 – 254)

3.3.1 Establishment and Composition
The Federal High Court as we have it today was first established in 1973 and originally known as
the Federal Revenue Court under the Federal Revenue Act of 197364 which established it. It was
then subsequently rechristened as Federal High Court under section 230 of the 1979 Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In discussing the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, it is
submitted, from onset, that no other court in Nigeria has had the scope of its jurisdiction subjected
to so much litigations than the Federal High Court. Several reasons may be adduced to buttress
this point but topmost among them is the fact that the Federal High Court and the High Courts of
the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and those of the States are at par65 in order of hierarchy of
courts in Nigeria and do share concurrent and even conflicting jurisdiction over several matters.
There are several cases66 to buttress this point and it is not within the scope of the discussion here
to wade through the complex intricacies of that contentious past of the Federal High Court. It must
also be noted that there isn’t much cloud regarding the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court today
as it used to be.
Under the present 1999 Constitution (as amended) the Federal High Court is established under
section 249 (1) thus:
249. (1) There shall be a Federal High Court.

63
Court of Appeal Act Cap. 75 L.F.N. 1990; CAP. C36 L.F.N. 2004
64
Decree No 13 of 1973
65
Section 252 (1) of the 1999 Constitution provides that a Federal High Court shall have all the powers of the High
Court of a State.
66
See generally - Jammal Steel Structures v. A.C.B (1973) All N.L.R. (Pt. 1); American International Insurance Company
v. CEEKAY Traders LTD (1981) 5 SC 81; Skenconsult (Nig) Ltd & Anor v. Godwin Ukey (1981) 1 SC 6; Bronik Motors Ltd
v. Wema Bank (1983) 6 S.C. 158; Savanah Bank v. Pan Atlantic (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 49) 212; A.M.C v. NPA (1987) 1
NWLR (Pt. 51) 475; Tukur v. Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517; NEPA v. Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798)
79; NDIC v. Okem Enterprises Ltd (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 880) 107; KLM Airlines v. Kumzhi (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt. 875) 231;
Grace Jack v. University of Agriculture Makurdi (2004) 5 NWLR (Pt. 865) 208; Onuorah v. KRPC Ltd (2005) 6 NWLR
(Pt.921) 393; Fasakin Foods Ltd v. Shosanya (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 126.

20
 (2) The Federal High Court shall consist of - (a) a Chief Judge of the
Federal High Court; and
(b) such number of Judges of the Federal High Court as may be
prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
For the proper constitution of the Federal High Court to exercise its jurisdiction the court will be
duly constituted with a single Judge of that Court sitting alone to hear and determine any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Court.67

3.3.2 Jurisdiction
The Federal High Court generally has an exclusive civil and criminal as well as appellate
jurisdictions with respect to matters under its specified jurisdiction under the Constitution.

3.3.2 (a) Civil Jurisdiction.

Civil jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is generally preserved under Section 251 (1) of the
1999 Constitution; section 7 (1) of the Federal High Court Act68 as well as other statutes. Section
251 (1) 1999 Constitution is however the most important and comprehensive provision on the
jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. It provides thus:
251. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contained in this
Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be
conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal
High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of
any other court in civil causes and matters - (a) relating to the
revenue of the Government of the Federation in which the said
Government or any organ thereof or a person suing or being sued on
behalf of the said Government is a party;
(b) connected with or pertaining to the taxation of companies and
other bodies established or carrying on business in Nigeria and all
other persons subject to Federal taxation;
(c) connected with or pertaining to customs and excise duties and
export duties, including any claim by or against the Nigeria Customs
Service or any member or officer thereof, arising from the
performance of any duty imposed under any regulation relating to
customs and excise duties and export duties;

67
Section 253 1999 Constitution (as amended)
68
FEDERAL HIGH COURT ACT CAP. 134 L.F.N. 1990; CAP F12 L.F.N. 2004

21
(d) connected with or pertaining to banking, banks, other financial
institutions, including any action between one bank and another, any
action by or against the Central Bank of Nigeria arising from
banking, foreign exchange, coinage, legal tender, bills of exchange,
letters of credit, promissory notes and other fiscal measures:
Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any dispute between
an individual customer and his bank in respect of transactions
between the individual customer and the bank;
(e) arising from the operation of the Companies and Allied Matters
Act or any other enactment replacing the Act or regulating the
operation of companies incorporated under the Companies and
Allied Matters Act;
(f) any Federal enactment relating to copyright, patent, designs,
trademarks and passing-off, industrial designs and merchandise
marks, business names, commercial and industrial monopolies,
combines and trusts, standards of goods and commodities and
industrial standards;
(g) any admiralty jurisdiction, including shipping and navigation on
the River Niger or River Benue and their affluents and on such other
inland waterway as may be designated by any enactment to be an
international waterway, all Federal ports, (including the constitution
and powers of the ports authorities for Federal ports) and carriage
by sea;
(h) diplomatic, consular and trade representation;
(i) citizenship, naturalisation and aliens, deportation of persons who
are not citizens of Nigeria, extradition, immigration into and
emigration from Nigeria, passports and visas;
(j) bankruptcy and insolvency;
(k) aviation and safety of aircraft.
(l) arms, ammunition and explosives;
(m) drugs and poisons;
(n) mines and minerals (including oil fields, oil mining, geological
surveys and natural gas);
(o) weights and measures:
(p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal
Government or any of its agencies;

22
 (q) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the operation and
interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal
Government or any of its agencies;
(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting
the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by
the Federal Government or any of its agencies; and
(s) such other jurisdiction civil or criminal and whether to the
exclusion of any other court or not as may be conferred upon it by
an Act of the National Assembly:
Provided that nothing in the provisions of paragraphs (p), (q) and (r)
of this subsection shall prevent a person from seeking redress
against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action
for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is
based on any enactment, law or equity.
The operative words from the above provision of the Constitution are clear. It says the Federal
High Court “shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes
and matters” relating to each of the item listed above. Although the words of the constitution are
very clear to that extent, almost all of the items listed above have generated serious controversies
with respect to the exact nature or scope of the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in relation
to State High Courts on the same or similar matters. Few examples will suffice.
In Nepa v. Edegbero (2002)69 the Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of section 251
(1) (p)(q)(r) & (s) on the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in matters affecting or
relating to the Federal Government and its agencies held that Federal High Court will have
exclusive jurisdiction in all matters or causes affecting or involving the Federal Government or
any of its agencies, notwithstanding the nature of the claims or status of the parties. But in the
subsequent cases of Grace Jack v. University of Agriculture Makurdi (2004)70 and Onuorah v.
KRPC Ltd (2005)71, the Supreme Court, without overruling itself in the earlier case of Nepa v.
Edegbero (2002), held that where the dispute involving a person and the Federal Government or
its agencies relates to simple contract or any breach thereof, it is the High Court of a State and not
the Federal High Court that will have jurisdiction. In other words, it does follow conclusively in
all cases that only the Federal High Court will have exclusive jurisdiction merely because the
Federal Government or any of its agencies is present in the matter or merely because the res relates
to an issue where the Federal High Court has an exclusive jurisdiction. Another case where the
jurisdictions of the Federal High Court had been extensively scrutinized and reviewed by the
Supreme Court was the case of NDIC v. Okem Enterprises Ltd (2004)72 where the provision of
section 251 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution had been interpreted. Before the decision of the

69
Supra
70
Supra
71
Supra
72
Supra

23
Supreme Court in this case, the position of the law as was held by several cases73 was that the State
High Court with its status of unlimited jurisdiction under the 1979 Constitution had jurisdiction
over all banking matters including those with which the Federal High Court had or was thought to
have exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court after reviewing all the previous cases beginning
from Jamma Steel Structures v. ACB Ltd (1973), supra, then came to the conclusions that may be
summarized as follows:
(i) As opposed to its traditional jurisdiction as a mere revenue court in the past, the 1999
Constitution has now conferred wider jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to the
exclusion of other courts, hence all the previous case law delimiting the jurisdiction of
the Federal High Court on the matters now clearly set under section 251 (1) of the 1999
Constitution are now spent forces
(ii) In view of the clear proviso to the provision of section 251 (1) (d) of the 1999
Constitution, only the Federal High Court now has exclusive jurisdiction over all
matters preceding the proviso under that subsection (1) (d);
(iii) In view of the proviso to the provision of section 251 (1) (d) of the 1999 Constitution
and which proviso was not contained under section 230 (1) (d) of the 1979, State High
Courts no longer have exclusive jurisdiction in claims between individual customers
and their banks in respect of banking transactions;
(iv) Both the State High Court and Federal High Court now have concurrent jurisdiction in
claims between individual customers and their banks in respect of banking transactions.

3.3.2 (b) Admiralty Jurisdiction

Admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court covers generally claims for loss or damage to
goods carried in ships or any claim arising out of any claim relating to the carriage of goods in
ships. Prior to the coming into force of the 1999 Constitution, the exact nature and scope of the
admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was also a matter of a serious controversy. For
examples, the Nigerian Supreme Court in the case of American International Insurance
Company (A.I.I.C.O) v. Ceekay Traders Ltd (1981) held that the Federal High Court had exclusive
jurisdiction in all admiralty matters pursuant to the combined provisions of sections 7(1)(b)(iii), 8
(1), 24 and 63 of the Federal High Court Act of 1973. However, in the subsequent case of Savanah
Bank v. Pan Atlantic (1987) the same Supreme Court held that both the Federal and State High
Courts have concurrent jurisdiction in admiralty matters, and that the provision of section 8 (1) of
Federal High Court Act of 1973 which had ousted the jurisdiction of the State High Court in
admiralty matters was inconsistent with the provision of section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution
which vested the State High Court with an unlimited jurisdiction. Meanwhile, it was the Admiralty
Jurisdiction Act of 199174 which eventually ended the reference in Nigeria to the Administration

73
Especially the case of Jammal Steel Structures v. A.C.B (1973) All N.L.R. (Pt. 1) where the Supreme Court upheld
the unlimited status of the Jurisdiction of the State High Court against the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal
Revenue Court at the time.
74
Originally promulgated as ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION DECREE NO 59 OF 1991; ACT CAP. A 5 L.F.N. 2004. This was
subsequently followed by the Decree 107 of 1993 which introduced the Admiralty Jurisdiction (Procedure Rules)
1993 to provide some guide for the prosecution and defence of admiralty proceedings in the court.

24
of Justice Act of England 1956 for determining the scope of the admiralty jurisdiction of the
Federal High Court in Nigeria.
Now in view of the clear provision of section 251 (1) (g) of the 1999 Constitution, coupled with
the provisions of the Federal High Court Act as well as the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act of 1991(as
amended), it is now beyond any doubt that the Federal High Court has an exclusive jurisdiction
over all admiralty matters. See Ports & Cargo Handling Services Company Ltd v. Migfo Nigeria
Ltd (2012), supra, on the intricacies of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and
cases where issues between parties may be mere issues of contractual relationship and over which
the Federal High Court may not have exclusive jurisdiction or any jurisdiction at all.

3.3.2 (c) Criminal Jurisdiction

Like its civil jurisdiction earlier discussed, the criminal jurisdiction of the Federal High Court has
also been fraught with controversies, especially before coming into force of the 1999 Constitution.
For example, it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Jamma Steel Structures v. ACB Ltd
(1973), supra, a case decided under the Federal High Court Act of 1973, that certain criminal
offences relating to banking transactions ought to be prosecuted like every other crime in any
appropriate State High Court and not the Federal High Court. In other words, it was held that the
Federal High Court had no exclusive jurisdiction in such criminal cases. However, whatever doubt
there was has now been settled by the clear provision of the 1999 Constitution.
Presently, the criminal jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is prescribed for under section 251
(2) of the 1999 Constitution thus:
(2) The Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction and
powers in respect of treason, treasonable felony and allied offences.
Further, section 251 (3) provides:
(3) The Federal High Court shall also have and exercise jurisdiction
and powers in respect of criminal causes and matters in respect of
which jurisdiction is conferred by subsection (1) of this section. 252
Furthermore, section 7 (1)(r) and 7(2) of the Federal High Court Act 200475 (as amended) restates
the above provisions of the Constitution and also conferred additional jurisdiction under section 7
(3) with respect to offences for which the Attorney General of the Federation may initiate criminal
proceedings. With respect to the provision of section 251(3) above, all that can be said of the scope
and extent of criminal jurisdiction of the Federal High Court therefore is that, the Federal High
Court has jurisdiction in all criminal matters arising from or bothering on all matters over which it
has exclusive civil jurisdiction under section 251(1) of the Constitution. In other words, the
criminal jurisdiction of the Federal High Court will cover treason, offences in respect of taxation
statutes, violation of provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2004 (CAMA); offences

75
FEDERAL HIGH COURT ACT CAP. 134 L.F.N. 1990 (as amended); ACT CAP F12 L.F.N. 2004 (as amended).

25
under the Customs and Excise Management Act 2004; offences concerning copyright, patent,
designs, trademarks and merchandise marks, banking, foreign exchange and currency law;
admiralty, insolvency, aviation and safety of aircraft, arms, ammunition and explosives, drugs and
poisons, bankruptcy and insolvency, banking, foreign exchange and currency matters, and etcetera.
It must be pointed out however, that whilst section 251 (1) is unequivocal on the exclusivity of the
civil jurisdiction of the Federal High Court on matters stated therein, there is no such exclusivity
under section 251 (2) and (3) with respect to criminal matters. Thus, it cannot be said that the
Federal High Court has exclusive criminal jurisdictions in all such matters listed above. Therefore,
both the Federal High Court and the State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in respect of
criminal cases or matters arising from the civil jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under section
251(1) of the Constitution. In Abass v. C.O.P (1998)76, the Court of Appeal held that:
While section 230(1) of the 1979 Constitution confers exclusive
jurisdiction on the Federal High Court in respect of civil causes and
matters listed under sub-paragraphs (a)-(q) of the sub section, no
such exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal High Court
by section 230(1A) in respect of criminal cases specified therein. In
other words, by literal interpretation of section 230 (1A), criminal
matters can concurrently be tried by the Federal High Court and
other courts conferred with criminal jurisdiction over the subject
matter in dispute.

3.3.2 (d) Power of Transfer of Cases

Perhaps as a saving grace for litigants who often file their cases wrongly at the Federal High Court
instead of the High Court of a State or other court, there are provisions of sections 22 (2) and 26
of the Federal High Court Act which permit a Judge of the Federal High Court to transfer such a
case to the appropriate High Court or even a Magistrate Court where it is expedient to do so.
Indeed, the Supreme Court had long held in the case of Mokelu v. Federal Commissioner for
Works & Housing (1976) that once a Federal High Court found that a case had been properly filed
before it instead of the appropriate High Court of a State or any other relevant court, the appropriate
order to make was to transfer the case to the appropriate court and not an order striking the case
out. See also the case of Fasakin Foods Ltd v. Shosanya (2006), supra, where the Supreme Court
affirmed the powers of the Federal High Court to transfer cases to the State High Courts instead
of striking them out. However, the Supreme Court also held that the provision of section 22 (3) of
the Federal High Court Act mandating the State High Court to transfer cases to the Federal High
Court in the like manner was incompetent and null and void. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court had
held in the earlier case of A.M.C v. NPA (1987)77 that the Lagos State High Court had no power
under order 22 rule 3 of its Rules to transfer a case before it to the Federal High Court. It held
further that once it has decided that it has no jurisdiction over such a case, the appropriate thing to

76
(1998) 12 NWLR (Pt. 577) 308 at 318, per Muhammad J.C.A.
77
(1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 51) 475

26
do was to strike it out. The obvious conclusion from these cases therefore is that the power to
transfer cases must be expressly conferred in the enabling statute or rules of the transferring court
before such a power can be exercised.

3.3.2 (e) Supervisory and Appellate Jurisdiction of the Federal High Court
By virtue of section 7 (9) of the Federal High Court Act 2004, the Federal High Court being a
Superior Court of Records, may exercise supervisory jurisdiction, by way of a judicial review,
over inferior courts or tribunals in relation to acts and omissions of persons, bodies and institutions
on subjects within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court. Furthermore, by the provision of
section 28 of the Federal High Court Act 2004 (as amended), the Federal High Court is vested
with an appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from:
a) Decisions of Appeal Tribunals established pursuant to the provisions of the Companies
Income Tax Act 2004 and the Personal Income Tax Act;

b) Decisions of the Customs, Immigration and Prison Services Boards under their relevant
enabling statutes;

c) Decisions of Magistrate Courts in respect of civil or criminal causes transferred to such

courts pursuant to the provisions of the Federal High Court Act;

d) Decisions of any other body established under any federal statutes on matters over which
the Federal High Court may exercise such jurisdiction.

3.4 The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (ss. 254A - 254F)78

3.4.1 Establishment and Composition
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NIC) was established in 1976 by the Trade Disputes Act,79
and was in 201080 elevated expressly in the Constitution as a superior court of record and of
coordinate jurisdiction with the Federal High Court, the various State High Courts and other Courts
of coordinate jurisdiction with a well-defined exclusive jurisdiction and powers as contained in the
Constitution. Section 254 (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) or the Third Alteration Act
2010 establishes the NIC thus:
254A- (1) There shall be a National Industrial Court of Nigeria.

78
As earlier pointed out, the National Industrial Court (NIC) was only introduced into the 1999 Constitution (as
amended) as a superior court of record pursuant to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third
Alteration) Act, 2010.
79
Cap 432, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990
80
Pursuant to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Third Alteration) Act, 2010.

27
 (2) The National Industrial Court shall consist of:
(a) President of the National Industrial Court; and
(b) such number of Judges of the National Industrial Court as may
be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
Furthermore, for the composition of the Court to exercise its jurisdiction, section 254E provides
thus:
254 E-( 1) For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred
upon it by this Constitution or any other law, the National Industrial
Court shall be duly constituted if it consists of a single Judge or not
more than three Judges as the President of the National Industrial
Court may direct.
(2) For the purpose of exercising its criminal jurisdiction, the
President or the Court may hear and determine or assign a single
Judge of the Court to hear and determine such matter.
(3) For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon it
by the Constitution or any other law. the Court may. if it thinks it
expedient to do so or in a manner prescribed under any enactment,
law or rules of court, call in the aid of one or more assessors
specially qualified to try and hear the cause or matter wholly or
partly with the assistance of such assessors.
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3) of this section, an assessor shall
be a person who is qualified and experienced in his field of
specialization and who has been so qualified for a period of not less
tha11 ten years.
Aside the Constitution, there is also the National Industrial Court Act 200681 and the National
Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2016. Both regulate the practice and procedure
of the NIC generally.

3.4.2 Jurisdiction
Section 254 (C) (1 – 4) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) generally confers on the NIC the
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts of coordinate jurisdiction to adjudicate over civil and
criminal causes and matters relating to labour, industrial trade union and industrial relations and

81
Act (No 1) 2006. Part II of the Trade Dispute Act 1976 which previously established the NIC has since been repealed
by section 53 (1) of the 2206 Act. Recently, the President of the NIC, Hon. Justice Babatunde Adeniran Adejumo, in
exercise of his powers under the respective provisions of section 254F (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended by
the Third Alteration Act, 2010) and section 36 of the NIC Act 2006, revoked the NIC Rules 2007 and Practice Direction
2012 and replaced them with the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2016.

28
environment and conditions of work, health, safety and welfare of labor and matters related and
incidental thereto amongst others. Prior to the enactment of the Third Alteration Act of 2010, the
Federal High Court, High Courts of the States and the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja all have concurrent jurisdiction with the National Industrial Court in its civil and criminal
jurisdiction. See the case of Attorney General of Oyo State v. Nigeria Labour Congress (2003).82
The NIC is now a superior court of records with very extensive exclusive civil jurisdiction.
Specifically, section 254 (C) provides thus:
254 C- (I) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 251, 257, 272
and anything contained in this Constitution and in addition to such
other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the
National Assembly, the National Industrial Court shall have and
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil
causes and matters
(a) relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade
unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the
conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour,
employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected
therewith;
(b) relating to, connected with or arising from Factories Act, Trade
Disputes Act, Trade Unions Act, Labour Act, Employees'
Compensation Act or any other Act or Law relating to labour,
employment, industrial relations,
workplace or any other enactment replacing the Acts or Laws;
(c) relating to or connected with the grant of any order restraining
any person or body from taking part in any strike, lock-out or any
industrial action, or any conduct in contemplation or in furtherance
of a strike, lock-out or any industrial action and matters Connected
therewith or related thereto;
(d) relating to or connected with any dispute over the interpretation
and application of the provisions of Chapter IV of this Constitution
as it relates to any employment, labour, industrial relations, trade
unionism, employer's association or any other matter which the
Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine;
(e) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from national
minimum wage for the Federation or any part thereof and matters
connected therewith or arising there from;

82
(2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 821) 1 at 35

29
(f) relating to or connected with unfair labour practice or
international best practices in labour, employment and industrial
relation matters;
(g) relating to or connected with any dispute arising from
discrimination or sexual harassment at workplace;
(h) relating to, connected with or pertaining to the application or
interpretation of international labour standards;
(i) connected with or related to child labour, child abuse, human
trafficking or any matter connected therewith or related thereto;
(j) relating to the determination of any question as to the
interpretation and application of any
(i) collective agreement;
(ii) award or order made by an arbitral tribunal in respect of a trade
dispute or a trade union dispute;
(iii) award or judgment of the Court;
(iv) term of settlement of any trade dispute;
(v) trade union dispute or employment dispute as may be recorded
in a memorandum of settlement;
(vi) trade union constitution, the constitution of an association of
employers or any association relating to employment, labour,
industrial relations or work place;
(vii) dispute relating to or connected with any personnel matter
arising from any free trade zone in the Federation or any part
thereof;
(k) relating to or connected with disputes arising from payment or
nonpayment of salaries, wages, pensions, gratuities, allowances,
benefits and any other entitlement of any employee, worker,
political or public office holder, judicial o1Ticcr or any civil or
public servant in any part of the Federation and matters incidental
thereto;
(l) relating to
(i) appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Unions, or
matters relating thereto or connected therewith;
(ii) appeals from the decisions or recommendations of any
administrative body or commission of enquiry, arising from or

30
connected with employment, labour, trade unions or industrial
relations; and
(iii) such other jurisdiction, civil or criminal and whether to the
exclusion of any other court or not, as may be conferred upon it by
an Act of the National Assembly;
(m) relating to or connected with the registration of collective
agreements.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution,
the National Industrial Court shall have the jurisdiction and power
to deal with any matter connected with or pertaining to the
application of any international convention, treaty or protocol of
which Nigeria has ratified relating to labour, employment,
workplace, industrial relations or matters connected therewith.
(3) The National Industrial Court may establish an Alternative
Dispute Resolutions Centre within the Court premises on matters
which jurisdiction is conferred on the court by this Constitution or
any Act or Law:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall preclude the National
Industrial Court from entertaining and exercising appellate and
supervisory jurisdiction over an arbitral tribunal or commission,
administrative body, or board of inquiry in respect of any matter that
the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain or any
other matter as may be prescribed by an Act of the National
Assembly or any Law in force in any part of the Federation.
(4) The National Industrial Court shall have and exercise
jurisdiction and powers to entertain any application for the
enforcement of the award, decision, ruling or order made by any
arbitral tribunal or commission, administrative body, or board of
inquiry relating to, connected with, arising from or pertaining to any
matter of which the National Industrial Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain.
(5) The National Industrial Court shall have and exercise
jurisdiction and powers in criminal causes and matters arising from
any cause or matter of which jurisdiction is conferred on the
National Industrial Court by this section or any other Act of the
National Assembly or by any other law.
(6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution,
appeal shall lie from the decision of the National Industrial Court

31
 from matters in sub-section 5 of this section to the Court of Appeal
as of right.
From foregoing elaborate provisions of the Constitution, it crystal clear that the NIC has an
extensive exclusive civil jurisdiction within the range of labour and all labour or industrial related
issues, and much like the Federal High Court and the High Courts of the States – with which the
NIC shares coordinate jurisdiction and powers as a superior court of records in Nigeria. Although
several of the above items have not been specifically tested in court, it is abundantly clear that the
NIC has exclusive jurisdiction in all such matters. Recently, the Supreme Court has affirmed the
exclusive jurisdiction of the NIC on labour matters generally and specifically on master-servant
relationship. In Coca-Cola v. Mrs. Titilayo Akinsanya (2017)83, the Court held in summary that
by virtue of Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the NIC has exclusive
jurisdiction over disputes arising from Master/Servant relationships.
Although the NIC has an exclusive civil jurisdiction in all the matters listed under section 254 C
above, it is clear from the provision of section 254C (5) that the criminal jurisdiction of the court
arising from all such matters is not exclusive. In other words, and much like the Federal High
Court, the NIC has concurrent criminal jurisdiction with all court with which it shares coordinate
powers and authority. Section 254C (5) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution provides thus:
(5) The National Industrial Court shall have and exercise
jurisdiction and powers in criminal causes and matters arising from
any cause or matter of which jurisdiction is conferred on the
National Industrial Court by this section or any other Act of the
National Assembly or by any other law.
(6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution,
appeal shall lie from the decision of the National Industrial Court
from matters in sub-section 5 of this section to the Court of Appeal
as of right.

3.4.3 Is the Decision of the NIC generally Appealable to the Court of Appeal?
Notwithstanding the seeming clarity of the provisions of the Constitution regarding the jurisdiction
of the NIC generally on labour issues and connected matters, the issue of appeal from its decisions
to the Court of Appeal has been fraught with so much controversies until it was recently settled by
the Supreme Court in the case of Skye Bank Plc v. Victor Anaemem Iwu (2017).84 Indeed, the
controversies surrounding the issue of ‘finality’ of the decisions of NIC fiercely raged in the legal
profession; among litigants, employees and employers of labour and the academia owing to and

83
Coca-Cola v. Mrs. Titilayo Akinsanya (2017) SC/542/13. Judgement was delivered by the Supreme Court on Friday,
30th June, 2017.
84
(2017) LPELR-42595 (SC); Suit No: SC.885/2014. Judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on Friday, 30th June,
2017. It was actually a consolidation of two appeals comprising also of Coca-Cola v. Mrs. Titilayo Akinsanya
SC/542/13.

32
resulting in conflicting decisions by the Court of Appeal in various divisions.85 The conflicting
decisions of the Court of Appeal arose mainly in their interpretation of Sections 240 and 243 (1-4)
of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) by Third Alteration Act of 2010. Prior to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case Skye Bank Plc v. Victor Anaemem Iwu (2017) it was thought that there
was no right of appeal from the decision of the NIC to the Court of Appeal except in fundamental
human right cases. Further, it was thought that subsection (3) to Section 243 of the 1999
Constitution had abrogated the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to hear and determine
appeals from the decision of the NIC, and that it is only when an Act of the National Assembly is
enacted that appeals may lie to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the NIC in other cases
other than fundamental human right cases. Two recent cases of Court of Appeal will suffice to
illustrate the controversies. In Coca-Cola (Nig) Ltd & 2 Ors v. Mrs. Titilayo Akisanya (2013)86
and Lagos Sheraton Hotel and Towers vs. Hotels and Personal Services Senior Staff (2014)87. In
these two cases, the Court of Appeal held that section 243 (2) & (3) only recognizes the right to
criminal appeals and appeals on questions of fundamental human rights and that all other rights of
appeal are subject to an Act of the National Assembly. The Court held further that since such Act
does not exist, then the decision of the NIC is final on the issue. The effect of the above decisions
is that an aggrieved litigant who intends to appeal on issues other than issues bordering on criminal
appeals and appeals on questions of fundamental human rights had no constitutional right of appeal.
However, the Supreme Court in Skye Bank Plc v. Victor Anaemem Iwu (2017) has now laid to
rest the ghost of all controversies regarding the finality or general appealability of the decisions of
the NIC to the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court in this case held that it will be incongruous to
construe subsection (3) to mean that unless and until an Act of the National Assembly is enacted to
vest in the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the NIC on issues or
matters other than fundamental rights question, the Court of Appeal cannot exercise the jurisdiction
vested on it by Section 240 of the Constitution to hear and determine appeals from the NIC. The
Supreme Court added that it is reasonable to construe subsection (3) of Section 243 of the 1999
Constitution to mean additional jurisdiction and the procedure for the exercise of the right of appeal
already donated to the Court of Appeal by Section 240 of the same Constitution. In summary, the

85
For example, on February 13 and 15, 2013, the Court of Appeal sitting at Ado-Ekiti Division decided four cases
namely: Local Government Service Commission, Ekiti State and Anor. v. Mr. M. A. Jegede (2013) LPELR-21131; Local
Government Service Commission, Ekiti State and Anor. v. Mr. M. K. Bamisaye (2013) LPELR-20407; Local Government
Service Commission, Ekiti State and Anor. v. Francis Oluyemi Olamiju (2013) LPELR-20409, and Local Government
Service Commission, Ekiti State and Anor. v. Mr. G. O. Asubiojo (2013) LPELR-20403. In each of these cases, this
Division of the Court of Appeal held that litigants have right of appeal as of right in matters relating to fundamental
rights as granted by section 243(2) of the Constitution and also that litigants can appeal with leave of the Court of
Appeal on all other matters. In other words, this Division of the Court of Appeal Court agreed that the NIC is not a
final court and that the decisions of the NIC are generally appealable to the Court of Appeal. However, later in the
same year 2013, the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal in the case of Coca-Cola (Nig) Limited v. Akinsanya (2013)
18 NWLR (Pt. 1386) 225 – delivered on July 4, 2013, held that until the National Assembly enact a law pursuant to
section 243 (3) of the 1999 Constitution, granting litigants right of appeal with leave, that the right does not exist. In
other words, the NIC is a final court with respect to all matters except for criminal appeals and appeals bothering on
fundamental human rights.
86
18 NWLR (pt. 1386) 225; (2013) 1 ACELR 28
87
(2014) LPELR 23340 (CA)

33
Supreme has now clearly decided that the Court of Appeal has the exclusive jurisdiction to hear
and determine all appeals from the NIC and such appeals shall not be limited to appeals on
Fundamental Human Rights and criminal matters alone.

3.4.4 Appellate and Supervisory Jurisdiction

By virtue of section 254C (3) and (4), the NIC also has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over
decisions or arbitral tribunals or commissions, administrative body, board of enquiries, industrial
panels, in all matters relating to, connected with, arising from or pertaining to any matter of which
the NIC has jurisdiction.

3.5 The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja (ss 255 -257)
3.5.1 Establishment and Composition
The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory is established pursuant to the provision of section
255(1) of the Constitution thus:
255. (1) There shall be a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja.
(2) The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall
consist of –
(a) a Chief Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja; and
(b) such number of Judges of the High Court as may be prescribed
by an Act of the National Assembly.

3.5.2 Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the High Court of the FCT is derived under section 257 (1) of the Constitution
thus:
257. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 251 and any other
provisions of this Constitution and in addition to such other
jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by law, the High Court of
the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall have jurisdiction to hear
and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent
of a legal right, power, duty, liability privilege, interest, obligation
or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal
proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture,

34
 punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by
any person.
(2) The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this section
includes a reference to the proceedings which originate in the High
Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja and those which are
brought before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja to be dealt with by the Court in the exercise of its appellate
or supervisory jurisdiction.
258. The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall be
duly constituted if it consists of at least one Judge of that court.
From the above, it is clear that the High Court of the FCT has original jurisdiction in civil and
criminal matters as well as appellate and supervisor jurisdictions over inferior courts or tribunals,
all within its domain. By domain it is meant the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. This point had
been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Dalhatu v. Turaki (2003)88 where it was observed
thus:
I have taken pains to discuss this judgement on territorial
jurisdiction of a court in view of recent developments whereby
litigants rather than suing in the proper courts come to the High
Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. I think their
Lordships of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory ought
to be circumspect before deciding whether or not it is wise and
correct to exercise jurisdiction in matters outside the territory of the
Federal Capital Territory. The Court, unlike the Federal High
Court has jurisdiction only in matters arising out of the Federal
Capital Territory, Abuja. Order 10 Rule 4 is only to determine the
proper judicial division of the court where a matter can be heard
and determined.
Further, by the provision of section 1 of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (Appeal from Area
Court) Act89, the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory has an exclusive appellate jurisdiction
to hear appeals from decisions, both civil and criminal, of the Upper Area Court or any Area Court
Grade 1 or 11. Also, by virtue of Order 44 of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja
(Civil Procedure Rules) the High Court of the FCT has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the
decisions of magistrate courts within the FCT, Abuja. Similarly, the High Court of the FCT, Abuja
just like the High Courts of the States, has general supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts and
tribunals and may grant order of mandamus, certiorari and injunctions, all by way of judicial review.

88
(2003) 7 S.C 1 at 13-14
89
CAP 127 L.F.N 1990

35
3.6 The Sharia Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja (ss. 260 – 264)
3.6.1 Establishment and Composition
The Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja is established pursuant
to the provision of section 260 of the Constitution thus:
260. (1) There shall be a Sharia Court of Appeal of the Federal
Capital Territory, Abuja. (2) The Sharia Court of Appeal of the
Federal Capital Territory, Abuja shall consist of -
(a) a Grand Kadi of the Sharia Court of Appeal; and
(b) such number of Kadis of the Sharia Court of Appeal as may be
prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
263. For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon
it by this Constitution or any Act of the National Assembly, the
Sharia Court of Appeal shall be duly constituted if it consists of at
least three Kadis of that Court.

3.6.2 Jurisdiction
On the jurisdiction of the Court, section 262 of the Constitution provides thus:
262. (1) The Sharia Court of Appeal shall, in addition to such other
jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National
Assembly, exercise such appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in
civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, the Sharia Court
of Appeal shall be competent to decide –
(a) any question of Islamic personal law regarding a marriage
concluded in accordance with that law, including a question relating
to the validity or dissolution of such a marriage or a question that
depends on such a marriage and relating to family relationship or the
guardianship of an infant;
(b) where all the parties to the proceeding are Muslims, any question
of Islamic personal law regarding a marriage, including the validity
or dissolution of that marriage, or regarding family relationship, a
foundling or the guardianship of an infant;
(c) any question of Islamic personal law regarding a wakf, gift, will
or succession where the endower, donor, testator or deceased person
is a Muslim;

36
 (d) any question of Islamic personal law regarding an infant,
prodigal or person of unsound mind who is a Muslim or the
maintenance or the guardianship of a Muslim who is physically or
mentally infirm; or
(e) where all the parties to the proceedings, being Muslims, have
requested the court that hears the case in the first instance to
determine that case in accordance with Islamic personal law, any
other question.
From the opening provision section 262 (1) above, it is clear that the Shariah Court of Appeal of
the FCT Abuja is basically an appellate and supervisory court on matters of Islamic personal law
arising from appeals from the decisions of Upper Area Court and any Area Court grade I or II in
any civil proceedings involving question of Islamic personal law. And by matters or questions of
Islamic personal law, it does not necessarily mean matters involving Muslims or relating generally
to Islam. In other words, matters or questions of Islamic personal law are definitive and not at large.
The Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Salam v. Salawu (2002) made the following clarifications
regarding the point.
Where however the constitution clearly confers jurisdiction, as in
the case now at hand, the power of court cannot be vitiated merely
because the matter concerns parties who are Muslims or the case is
of Muslim law in so far as the matter is not of Islamic personal law.
The Islamic personal law (must be of Maliki School) governing
matters enumerated in section 262 of the Constitution of 1999 and
section 242 of 1979 Constitution…90
Further, Muhammed Uwais, CJN, held in his concurring judgement thus:
On the argument that the nature of the dispute between the parties
and their status as Muslims, are matters pertaining to Islamic
personal law under the 1979 Constitution I am unable to agree. The
phrase “Islamic law” is not defined under the 1979 Constitution
although the Constitution made reference in Section 242(2) thereof
to certain aspects of it, namely marriage, family relationship,
guardian of infant, foundling, wakf, gift, will or succession and
prodigal or person of unsound mind. None of these subjects covers
the appointment of an Imam or Naibi or succession to such office.91
In that case the Plaintiff had instituted a case at the High Court of Kogi State praying, amongst
others, for declaration of himself as the person properly nominated as the Chief Imam of Ikengwe
Central Mosque. Upon appeals all through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court the issue of
jurisdiction was raised for the first time at the Supreme Court to the effect that the trial High Court

90
(2002) 6SC (Pt III) 196, per Belgore JSC at p.202
91
Ibid., at p. 204

37
had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case in the first instance. It was contended for the
appellants that since the parties were Muslims and the issue of who become an Imam of a mosque
was an issue purely of Islamic Law the High Court ought not to have assumed jurisdiction in the
matter. The contention was rejected by the Supreme Court on the ground that the issue of who
become an Imam of a Muslim mosque was not covered in the specific items referred to as matters
of Islamic personal law under section 262 of the 1999 Constitution. In Usman v. Umaru (1992)92
the Supreme Court per Muhammed Uwais JSC, also drew a clear distinction between the terms
“Moslem personal law” and “Moslem law” in the following words:
There is a difference between “Moslem personal law” and “Moslem
law”. The former is as defined be section 2 (1) of the Area Court
Edict 1968 and section 2 of the Sharia Court of Appeal Law, CAP
122 Laws of Northern Nigeria, 1963, while “Moslem law” is the
totality of Islamic law which includes, but is wider in scope than, the
limited area defined as “Moslem personal law.”93
Furthermore, in a later case of Usman v. Kareem (1995)94 the Supreme Court held that a case of a
gift between Muslims falls within the contemplation of what constitutes subject of Islamic personal
law under section 242(2) of the 1979 Constitution, and that an appeal will thereby lie appropriately
regarding such matters from the Area Court to the Sharia Court of Appeal of the relevant case.
Also, in Abuja v. Bizi (1989)95, a case involving an inheritance under Islamic law, it was held that
the Sharia Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal arising from the
decision of the Area Court.
Finally, it should also be noted that matters or issues of Islamic person law are purely civil matters
and do not extend to any criminal matter whatsoever. Thus, the Sharia Court of Appeal does not
have any appellate or supervisory jurisdiction whatsoever in criminal cases.

3.7 The Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja (ss.
265 – 269)
3.7.1 Establishment and Composition
Section 265 of the 1999 Constitution provides for the establishment of the Customary Court of
Appeal of the FCT, Abuja thus:
265. (1) There shall be a Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal
Capital Territory, Abuja.

92
(1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 254) 377 at 407
93
Ibid., p. 407
94
(1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 379) 541.
95
(1989) 5 NWLR (Pt 119) 120

38
 (2) The Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital Territory,
Abuja shall consist of -
(a) a President of the Customary Court of Appeal; and
(b) such number of Judges of the Customary Court of Appeal as may
be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
268. For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon
it by this Constitution or any Act of the National Assembly, the
Customary Court of Appeal shall be duly constituted if it consists of
at least three Judges of that Court.
3.7.2 Jurisdiction
On the jurisdiction of the of the Customary Court of Appeal of the FCT, Abuja section 267 of the
1999 Constitution provides thus:
267. The Customary Court of Appeal of the Federal Capital
Territory, Abuja shall, in addition to such other jurisdiction as may
be conferred upon by an Act of the National Assembly Exercise such
appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving
questions of Customary law.
From the above, it is clear that the Customary Court of Appeal of the FCT, Abuja is basically an
appellate and supervisory court on matters of customary law arising from appeals from customary
courts. On the nature of the appellate or supervisory jurisdiction of the Sharia Court of Appeal and
the Customary Court of Appeal, the Court in Okahe v. Gov, Bendel State (1990)96 held that:
The purpose of setting up of the Shariah Court of Appeal and the
Customary Court of Appeal of any State that desires either or both
is to give these two superior courts of record restrictive appellate
and supervisory jurisdiction in respect of Islamic personal law in
the case of the former and customary law in respect of the latter. In
view of this, there can be no justification for interpreting subsection
(2) of section 279 of the Constitution to enlarge the scope of the
restrictive jurisdiction granted the Customary Court of Appeal.
(Attorney General of the Federation v. A-G. Imo State and Ors
(1982) 12 S.C. 274 applied).
It must be noted that in Northern Nigeria it is generally the Area Court which occupies the position
of what are generally Customary Courts in Southern Nigeria. Under the High Court Law of
Northern Nigeria97, both the native law and customs were defined to include Islamic law. Thus,
Islamic law is part of the native law and custom over which an Area Court in the North may
exercise jurisdiction. But can it really be said that Islamic law is customary law? In Usman v.

96
(1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 144) 327
97
Laws of Norther Nigeria 1963 CAP 49

39
Umaru (1992)98Bello, CJN in his judgement stated unequivocally that customary law is incapable
of including Islamic Law. The learned Justice of the Supreme Court went ahead to add that
customary law is unwritten law recognised as a law by the members of an ethnic group while
Islamic law is written in the Holy Qur’an and the numerous books of Hadith. Also, in the
subsequent case of Alkamawa v. Bello (1998)99, the Supreme Court, per Wali JSC, held that
Islamic law is not the same as customary law as it does not belong to any particular tribe. The
learned Justice then concluded by stating that Islamic law is a complete system of universal law,
more certain, permanent and even universal than the English Common law.

3.8 High Court of State (ss 270 – 274)

3.8.1 Establishment and Composition
For the establishment of the High Court for each of the present 36 States of the Federation of
Nigeria section 270 (1) of the 1999 Constitution generally provides thus:
270. (1) There shall be a High Court for each State of the Federation.
(2) The High Court of a State shall consist of -
(a) a Chief Judge of the State; and
(b) such number of Judges of the High Court as may be prescribed
by a Law of the House of Assembly of the State.
And for its proper composition to exercise the jurisdiction section 273 of the Constitution provides
thus:
273. For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred upon
it under this Constitution or any law, a High court of a State shall be
duly constituted if it consists of at least one Judge of that Court.

3.8.2 Original Jurisdiction

Generally, a High Court of a State has original civil and criminal jurisdiction as well as appellate
and supervisory jurisdiction. A High Court of a State also has concurrent jurisdiction with other
Courts of coordinate jurisdiction such as the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court and the
High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. For its original jurisdiction, section 272 (1) of
the 1999 Constitution provides thus:
272. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 251 and other provisions
of this Constitution, the High Court of a State shall have jurisdiction
to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence

98
(1992) 7 NWLR (PT 254) p. 401 para D.
99
(1998) 8 NWLR PT 561 p. 182 para C.

40
 or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest,
obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal
proceedings involving or relating to any penalty, forfeiture,
punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by
any person.
(2) The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this section
includes a reference to the proceedings which originate in the High
Court of a State and those which are brought before the High Court
to be dealt with by the court in the exercise of its appellate or
supervisory jurisdiction.
In addition to the Constitution, there are also laws100 of individual State as well as their peculiar
rules of Court for the on the jurisdiction of the High Court. By the provisions above, it is clear that
save for matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court under section 251 of
the Constitution, the original jurisdiction of a High Court in civil and criminal matters and quite
broad and covers matters provided for under the Law of the State or any enactment of the National
Assembly.
Further to the above provision of section 272 of the 1999 Constitution, section 286 (1)(a) also vests
the High Court of the Federation with an expansive jurisdiction on federal causes. In other words,
a cause or matter which is a subject of an Act of the National Assembly may be litigated upon at
the High Court of State subject to the provisions of the Constition.101 Put differently, an Act of the
National Assembly may also confer jurisdiction on the High of a State regarding federal causes.102

3.8.3 Concurrent Jurisdiction

Concurrent jurisdiction basically relates to exercise of jurisdiction over the same subject matter by
courts of coordinate jurisdiction. Does this mean conflict? Not necessarily so. It simply means that
each court, though autonomous and independent of each, could exercise jurisdiction over the same
subject matter that are not exclusive to each. In Nigeria, the High Court of the States, being Courts
with coordinate jurisdiction with the Federal High Court, National Industrial Court and the High
Court of the FCT, Abuja do exercise concurrent jurisdiction over certain subjects that are not
mutually exclusive to each. Subject common subjects include application for the enforcement of
fundamental human rights103 as well as pure contract issues or dispute arising from banker customer

100
For example, the High Court Law, Cap H3, Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria, 2003 (as amended by High Court
(Amendment Law) 2012. It is pursuant to this Law that the Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2012 have
also been made by the Chief Judge of the State.
101
Attorney General Ondo State v. Attorney General Federation (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222; (2002) 6 S.C. (Pt. 1) 1
102
For examples: The Economic and Financial Crimes (Establishment) Act 2002, Cap E1, L.F.N 2004; Corrupt Practices
and Other Related Offences Act 2000, Cap C31, L.F.N 2004.
103
The rights guaranteed under Chapters 4 of the Constitution. Order II Rule I of the Fundamental Rights
Enforcement Procedure Rules 2009 clearly vests jurisdiction in the High Court of a State for the ventilation of such
issue of rights. Today, such jurisdiction is now concurrently shared with the Federal High Court and the National
Industrial Court.

41
relationship. In the case of Bronik Motors Ltd v. Wema Bank Ltd (1983), supra, an attempt by the
defendant to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court of a State was struck down by the Supreme
Court, holding that section 8 of the Federal High Court 1973 (as amended) which purported to oust
the jurisdiction of the State High Court was null and void, for being inconsistent with section 236(1)
of the 1979 Constitution. The Supreme Court then conclude that where both the Federal High Court
and a State High Court exist in a State, they both have concurrent jurisdiction in matters pertaining
to fundamental human rights. This was also the position of the Supreme Court in the cases of Tukur
v. Government of Gongola State (1989), supra, and Grace Jack v. University of Agriculture
Makurdi (2004), supra. It should be noted also that the criminal jurisdiction of the Federal High
Court under section 251 (2) and (3) of the 1999 Constitution is not exclusive but also exercised
concurrently with the State High Courts.

3.8.4 Appellate and Supervisory Jurisdiction

In exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, section 272 (2) confers the following powers on the High
Court of a State.
(2) The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this section
includes a reference to the proceedings which originate in the High
Court of a State and those which are brought before the High Court
to be dealt with by the court in the exercise of its appellate or
supervisory jurisdiction.
Flowing from the above, it is clear that a High Court of a State has both appellate and supervisory
jurisdiction on appeals from decisions of all inferior courts within its jurisdiction or as may be
prescribed by any law. However, section 277 and 288 of the Constitution also delimit the appellate
and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court of a State by providing that civil appeals from
decisions of an Area Court involving a question of Muslim personal law shall go to the Sharia Court
of Appeal whilst those arising from customary law shall go to the Customary Court of Appeal
respectively. Further to the foregoing provisions of the 1999 Constitution, the respect Laws of
individual States also confer appellate and/or supervisory jurisdiction on the State High Courts. For
example, section 28 of the High Court Law of Lagos State provides that the Court shall have
appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all appeals from the decisions of Magistrate Courts of
the State in civil and criminal matters. It must be noted that unlike the case where a single judge is
competent to sit and hear and determine any cause in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the
Court, the law and practice regarding the required number of judges for appellate jurisdiction differ
from state to state. In some States such as Lagos State, a single judge is ordinarily competent except
as may be directed otherwise by the Chief Judge of the State.104 In most Norther States on the

104
Section 29(2) of the High Court of Lagos State envisages a circumstance where three judges may have to sit as
may be directed by the Chief Judge.

42
contrary, the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of a High Court is by a panel of more than a
judge, usually three in numbers.105
The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under section 272 (2) of the Constitution
quoted above is exercisable over inferior courts, tribunals, executive or statutory bodies, by way of
issuing prerogative orders of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus amongst others.106

3.8.5 Criminal Jurdictions

By the provisions of sections 272 (1) and (2) of the Constitution, a High Court of a State is also
vested with jurisdiction on all criminal matters subject only exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal
High Court under section 251 and other provisions of the Constitution. Essentially, the criminal
jurisdiction of the High Court of a State can be divided into three. One, original jurisdiction to hear
and determine all indictable offences contained in an Information pursuant to provisions of the
criminal law of the State or any other enactment. Two, to hear and determine criminal appeals from
decisions of inferior courts within its jurisdiction, such as Magistrate Courts or Area Courts or other
special Offences courts. Three, to hear and determine cases arising from federal offences. At any
rate, the question whether or not a High Court of a State has jurisdiction over Federal offences was
settled in the case of Bronik Motors v. Wema Bank Ltd (1983), supra. In that case it was contended
for the appellant that the Constitution of 1979 clearly demarcated the jurisdiction of State and
Federal High Court, and that while State High Courts were restricted to State offences, the Federal
High Court was restricted to federal offences. The Supreme Court rejected the appellants contention
and held that both the State and the Federal High Courts have concurrent jurisdictions on such
matters. For example, section 18 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Act of 2002, states that the
Federal High Court or the High Court of a State has jurisdiction to try offences under this Act. It
follows therefore that the Attorney General of the Federation or anyone acting on his behalf can
initiate criminal proceedings in the High Court of a State in respect of such federal offences.

3.9 Sharia Court of Appeal of a State (ss. 275-279)

It is enough to simply state here that everything said of the composition and jurisdiction of the
Sharia Court of Appeal of the FCT, Abuja above applies mutatis mutandis to the Sharia Court of
Appeal of a State. The only fundamental difference is their distinct sphere of authority, territorial
jurisdictions. In other words, each court has its jurisdiction restricted only to its territory. In
addition to that, section 275 (1) of the 1999 Constitution makes it clear that the establishment of
the Sharia Court of Appeal of a State is voluntary and open only to any State that desires or
“requires” it. Quite strangely and inspite of the sizeable population of Muslims in the Southern
States of Nigeria, there is no any Sharia Court of Appeal in any State of the Southern States of

105
Billiri v. Billiri (1991) 4 NWLR (Pt. 186) 473
106
In Okeahialam v. Nwamara (2003) 12 NWLR (Pt. 835) 597, it was held that a High Court of a State has inherent
jurisdiction to control all inferior courts in a supervisory capacity. It should be noted that appellate capacity is
difference from supervisory capacity.

43
Nigeria as yet. This has made it difficult for Muslims who married under Islamic law to have
convenient access to forum (courts) to determine the validity of their marriage and other issues of
Islamic law or personal law covered under section 262 of the 1999 Constitution. There are only
Sharia Courts of Appeal in the Northern States of Nigeria for now.

3.10 Customary Court of Appeal of a State (ss. 280-284)

It is enough to simply state here that everything said of the composition and jurisdiction of the
Customary Court of Appeal of the FCT, Abuja above applies mutatis mutandis to the Customary
Court of Appeal of a State. The only fundamental difference is their distinct sphere of authority,
territorial jurisdictions. In other words, each court has its jurisdiction restricted only to its territory.
In addition to that, section 280 (1) of the 1999 Constitution makes it clear that the establishment
of the Customary Court of Appeal of a State is voluntary and open only to any State that desires
or “requires” it.

44