Jurisdiction occupies a unique and indispensable position within the administration of justice. It is the legal authority conferred upon a court to hear and determine disputes brought before it. The law is settled that where a court lacks jurisdiction, the entire proceedings, no matter how meticulously conducted, amount to a nullity. As famously stated by the Supreme Court in MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIM (1962) 2 SCNLR 341, a court is competent only where it is properly constituted, the subject matter falls within its jurisdiction, and the case is initiated by due process upon fulfillment of all conditions precedent. This principle has remained one of the most enduring doctrines in Nigerian jurisprudence.
Jurisdiction is the legal power and authority of a court to hear, determine, and pronounce upon disputes brought before it. It is the foundation upon which every valid judicial proceeding rests. In NNAKWE V. THE STATE (2013) LPELR-20941 (SC), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the issue of jurisdiction is so fundamental that it may be raised at any stage of proceedings, and where jurisdiction is absent, every step taken by the court becomes void and incapable of conferring legal rights or obligations.
Given its fundamental nature, jurisdiction has become one of the most powerful tools in modern litigation. It is often raised through preliminary objections and may be invoked at any stage of proceedings, including on appeal. While the doctrine serves the legitimate purpose of ensuring that courts act within the limits prescribed by law, it has increasingly been deployed as a procedural weapon capable of terminating actions without any consideration of their substantive merits.
This development has generated a perennial tension between adherence to procedural requirements and the broader objective of achieving substantial justice. The question therefore arises whether jurisdictional objections, particularly those founded upon technical defects, advance the cause of justice or merely frustrate the determination of disputes on their merits.
This article examines the legal foundations of jurisdiction, the evolution of judicial attitudes towards technical objections, and the extent to which jurisdiction has become a terminal weapon in Nigerian litigation.
The Concept and Importance of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the foundation upon which every judicial proceeding rests. Without it, a court lacks the legal authority to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of parties.
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised the centrality of jurisdiction to the adjudicatory process. In TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT.117) 517, the Court held that jurisdiction is the blood that gives life to the survival of an action in court and that without jurisdiction, proceedings are dead on arrival.
Similarly, in A.G. LAGOS STATE V. DOSUNMU (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.111) 552, the Supreme Court reiterated that jurisdiction is the threshold issue that must be resolved before any substantive matter can be considered.
The celebrated decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim established the conditions that must exist before a court can validly exercise jurisdiction. According to the Supreme Court, a court is competent when:
(a) it is properly constituted as regards the number and qualification of its members;
(b) the subject matter of the action is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature preventing the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
(c) the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of all conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.
These requirements have become the benchmark for determining the competence of courts in Nigeria. The absence of any one of these conditions is sufficient to render proceedings a nullity irrespective of the merits of the dispute.
The significance attached to jurisdiction explains why it may be raised at any stage of proceedings and why courts are obligated to determine it whenever it arises. In NDIC v. CBN (2002) 7 NWLR (Pt.766) 272, the Supreme Court affirmed that a jurisdictional challenge can be raised even for the first time before the apex court.
The determination of jurisdiction is generally influenced by several factors, including the nature and subject matter of the dispute, the identity and status of the parties, the mode by which the action was commenced, the geographical area within which the cause of action arose, the existence of statutory conditions precedent, and the applicable constitutional or statutory provisions conferring adjudicatory authority on the court. Consequently, jurisdiction is not determined by the convenience of the parties but by the express provisions of the Constitution and enabling statutes.
Types of Jurisdiction and When Jurisdictional Objections May Be Raised
Understanding Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction refers to the authority conferred on a court by the Constitution, statute, or other enabling law to hear and determine disputes brought before it. It may relate to:
- Subject-matter jurisdiction – whether the court can hear the type of case presented before it;
- Territorial jurisdiction – whether the matter arose within the court’s geographical competence;
- Personal jurisdiction – whether the parties are properly before the court;
- Procedural jurisdiction – whether conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction have been fulfilled.
The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that jurisdiction is fundamental and can be raised at any stage of proceedings, even on appeal. Once successfully challenged, the proceedings become null and void.
This principle explains why jurisdictional objections are often the first line of defense in contentious litigation.
Jurisdiction As A Procedural Weapon
The strategic value of jurisdictional objections cannot be overstated. A successful objection may terminate proceedings instantly, irrespective of the merits of the underlying claim.
Defendants frequently challenge actions on grounds such as:
1. Failure to comply with conditions precedent;
2. Absence of locus standi;
3. Improper service of originating processes;
4. Statute-barred claims;
5. Filing before a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction;
6. Failure to issue pre-action notices; and
7. Defective commencement procedures.
The practical consequence is that substantial claims may be defeated without any judicial inquiry into their merits.
The Supreme Court’s decision in NNONYE V. ANYICHIE (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt.910) 623 illustrates how procedural defects affecting jurisdiction may invalidate proceedings regardless of the strength of the claimant’s case.
Consequently, jurisdiction has evolved from a protective doctrine into a formidable litigation strategy capable of ending disputes at inception.
The Era Of Technical Justice
For several decades, Nigerian courts adopted a strict approach towards procedural compliance. Jurisdictional defects, however minor, frequently resulted in the dismissal or striking out of actions.
This judicial philosophy was rooted in the belief that legal certainty and procedural discipline are indispensable to the administration of justice. The courts maintained that parties seeking judicial remedies must strictly comply with statutory requirements.
In ARIORI V. ELEMO (1983) 1 SCNLR 1, the Supreme Court emphasised that courts are bound to give effect to clear statutory provisions irrespective of perceived hardship.
Likewise, in NALSA & TEAM ASSOCIATES V. NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.212) 652, the Court insisted upon strict compliance with statutory conditions precedent before the exercise of judicial powers.
Under this approach, technical objections often succeeded even where no substantial prejudice had been occasioned to the opposing party.
The Emergence Of Substantial Justice
Modern judicial thinking has increasingly shifted away from excessive technicality towards a more justice-oriented approach.
In BELLO V. A.G. OYO STATE (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt.45) 828, the Supreme Court observed that courts exist to do substantial justice and should not allow procedural rules to become instruments of injustice.
The apex court further reinforced this position in AKEREDOLU V. ABRAHAM (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt.1628) 510, where it cautioned against undue reliance on technicalities that impede the determination of disputes on their merits.
Similarly, in AMAECHI V. INEC (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt.1080) 227, the Supreme Court famously declared that the essence of adjudication is substantial justice rather than slavish adherence to technical rules.
These decisions reflect an emerging judicial preference for resolving disputes based on the rights and obligations of parties rather than procedural imperfections.
The Limits Of Substantial Justice
Despite the courts’ growing hostility towards technicality, there remains a critical distinction between curable procedural irregularities and fundamental jurisdictional defects.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that substantial justice cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists.
In ASABE V. BABALE (2025) LPELR-81714 (SC), the Court held that parties cannot by consent, waiver, acquiescence, or conduct vest a court with jurisdiction that it otherwise lacks.
Likewise, in MUSTAPHA V. GOVERNOR OF LAGOS STATE (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt.58) 539, the Court emphasised that jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by considerations of convenience or fairness.
Accordingly, while courts may overlook procedural irregularities that do not affect competence, they remain bound to decline jurisdiction where statutory or constitutional requirements have not been satisfied.
The Nigerian Judicial Experience
Nigerian jurisprudence reflects a constant struggle between strict compliance and substantial justice. On one hand, appellate courts insist that jurisdiction is sacrosanct. On the other hand, they increasingly emphasise that cases should, where possible, be determined on their merits.
This duality is evident in decisions distinguishing:
- Irregularities that can be waived or cured, from
- Fundamental defects that render proceedings a nullity.
The challenge for courts is determining into which category a particular defect falls.
Recent trends suggest a more pragmatic approach: where non-compliance does not affect competence, occasion injustice, or violate an express statutory prohibition, courts may lean toward preserving proceedings rather than destroying them.
That evolution is healthy. Litigation should not become a contest in trap-setting.
Balancing Technicality And Justice
The challenge confronting contemporary courts is balancing procedural certainty with substantive fairness.
On one hand, jurisdictional rules protect the integrity of the judicial system by ensuring that courts operate within lawful limits. On the other hand, excessive reliance on technical objections may undermine public confidence in the justice system where deserving cases are dismissed without consideration of their merits.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged this dilemma in FIDELITY BANK V. SAGECOM CONCEPTS (2025) LPELR-81172(SC), observing that rules of court are intended to facilitate justice and not to obstruct it.
A balanced approach therefore requires courts to distinguish between defects that genuinely affect jurisdiction and those that merely constitute procedural irregularities capable of being cured without prejudice to any party.
Conclusion
Jurisdiction remains the cornerstone of judicial authority and an indispensable component of the rule of law. Its importance cannot be understated, for every valid adjudication depends upon the existence of jurisdiction.
However, the increasing use of jurisdictional objections as litigation weapons has reignited the debate between technicality and substantial justice. While procedural requirements are necessary for order and certainty, they should not become instruments through which meritorious claims are defeated without a hearing on the merits.
The evolving jurisprudence of Nigerian courts suggests a growing commitment to substantial justice while preserving the inviolable principle that jurisdiction cannot be assumed, waived, or conferred by consent. Ultimately, the proper administration of justice requires a careful balance; one that respects procedural safeguards without allowing technicality to eclipse the fundamental objective of the judicial process: the fair and just determination of disputes.out allowing technicality to eclipse the fundamental objective of the judicial process: the fair and just determination of disputes.