Distinguishing Between “Inherent Jurisdiction Of The Court” And “Jurisdiction Of The Court”

By Oliver Azi

Legal principles can be dicey, especially as they closely relate to each other. The statements inherent jurisdiction of court” and “jurisdiction of court” Buhaves often come up for debate under the Nigerian legal landscape and continuous corrections by court in Nigeria as to what they mean and why they should enhance our legal history. But what does it really mean?

wasOriginally, it was a doctrine of the English common law that a superior court has the jurisdiction to hear any matter that comes before it, unless a statute or rule limits that authority or grants exclusive jurisdiction to some other court or tribunal. In the English case of Ltd.,Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd., 2 WLR 141, Lord Diplock described the court’s inherent jurisdiction as a general power to control its own procedure so as to prevent its being used to achieve injustice.

In 211,Okeke v. APGA (2023) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1913) 211, which is a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, the court attempted to draw a variance between “inherent jurisdiction of court” and “jurisdiction of court” when it held that:

The term “inherent jurisdiction of the court” does not mean the same thing as “jurisdiction of the court” used without qualification or description. The two terms are not interchangeable as inherent jurisdiction of the court is only a part or an aspect of its general jurisdiction. The inherent power does not extend the jurisdiction of a court of record. It only lubricates its statutory jurisdiction that makes it works.

That is, the inherent jurisdiction serves as the lubricant which makes the statutory jurisdiction works smoothly. Furthermore, in PDP v LAWAL (2023) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1898) 205 the court gave a further lecture on what inherent jurisdiction means:

The term inherent jurisdiction denotes the legal authority or power vested in a court or tribunal to entertain, hear and determine any matter or issue before it unless a statute or rule limits that authority or power.  Jurisdiction is fundamentally statutory which is usually conferred on the court by the Constitution or the law creating it. 

In Lawal v EFCC (2020) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1744) 193, further lights was given to the above position, especially as how inherent jurisdiction deals with statutory jurisdiction, when the court held that:

In addition to its statutory jurisdiction, a court of record has its inherent jurisdiction, which attaches to and inheres in it as an adjudicator. The inherent jurisdiction of a superior court of record is essential for its existence and necessary for the proper and complete administration of justice. The inherent power is innate in a court of record; it is not granted by the Constitution or by legislation nor can it be abridged. Further, section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution has recognised, endorsed and preserved the inherent jurisdiction, powers and sanctions of a court of record. (Further see the case of Ikuforiji v F.R.N (2021) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1772) 249)

Academically speaking, the court used a lexicological approach in explaining what “inherent jurisdiction” means in context of a court in the case Tidex (Nig) Ltd. V Maskew (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt. 482) 453 when it held that:

Inherent power of a court and statutory jurisdiction of a court cannot co-exist. Once a court is by legislation conferred with power to deal with a subject-matter, it exercises not an inherent power or inherent jurisdiction over that subject-matter but statutory power or statutory jurisdiction. (P. 467, para. B) Per NSOFOR, J.C.A. at pages 466-467, paras. H-C: “The word, “inherent” is a simple English word. It derives from the Latin: “inhaereo – inhaerere, – inhaesi, – inhaesum”, meaning, “to stick in, cling to, cleave to”. Therefore, “inherent jurisdiction”, of a court is that jurisdiction which “sticks in” or “clings to” or “cleave to” the court, by the very only, and only because it is a court.

By virtue of the foregoing, it is crystal clear that, while inherent jurisdiction of the court comes by virtue of it being a court, statutory jurisdiction is vested upon the court by a law or statute. To exemplify this, a court by nature has the jurisdiction to attain judgment or organize the procedure for judgement; however, statutory jurisdiction can allocate to the court what case or cases this inherent jurisdiction can be leveraged on.

• INHERENT “JURISDICTION OF THE COURT” AND “JURISDICTION OF THE COURT” IN APPEAL CASES

There is also the need to draw this argument further to cases of appeal and when the appeal court can be said to have an “inherent jurisdiction”. The Court of Appeal, being the penultimate court, held in OKAFOR v OKAFOR (2000) 11 NWLR (Pt. 677) 21 that:

 The inherent jurisdiction or powers of the court of Appeal means different things when used in relation to the exercise of the original and appellate jurisdiction of the court of Appeal. In relation to the original jurisdiction of the court, the inherent powers of the court of Appeal are the powers inherent in trial courts or courts of first instance, while in relation to the appellate jurisdiction, the inherent powers of the court of Appeal are the powers that necessarily flow from and in aid of the effective exercise of that jurisdiction.

To further explain the above assertion which differentiates between when a court is sitting as a court of first instance and when it sits as an appellate court, the law lords at the Court of Appeal further held that:

In the instant case, the applicants’ motion that gave rise to the respondents’ preliminary objection does not relate to the exercise of the judicial powers of the court of Appeal in respect of matters over which it has original jurisdiction. 

Hence, there is need to clearly differentiates both aspect of the law and know what ambits and bound the court can draw its out. This is because, jurisdiction is an important thing which serves as the bedrock, fulcrum and foundation upon which all legal proceedings can stand, absence of it makes nullity every legal efforts.
_______________________________________________________________________

Legal Researcher and Writer, Oliver Azi is a law graduate from the University of Jos and can be reached via email at: oliverazi20@gmail.com or LinkedIn at: www.linkedin.com/in/oliver-azi-76b323182

Source: @Nigerialawyer