Cyril O. Osakwe v.Federal College of Education Asaba &ors (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.
1201) 1 (Supreme Court)
The issue for
determination by the court between the parties is a contract of
employment. The appellant brought an action against his employer; but
during the proceedings, the law was changed. Both lower courts declared that
the appellant’s cause of action accrued when his employment was terminated on
30/3/90. The appellant’s cause of action arose before Decree 107 which is on
the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court was promulgated, as the Decree came
into effect on the 18th of November 1993.
b.
Related Ratio
i.
The High Court of a State had unlimited 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, punishment or other liability in respect of an
offence committed by any person. (Per Adekeye, JSC).
ii.
The relevant law applicable in respect of a cause of action is
the law in force at the time the cause of action arose, and the law relating to
jurisdiction is the prevailing law when the action was instituted and heard.
The law in both situations may not co-exist. (Per Adekeye, JSC)
iii.
Jurisdiction is the power of the court to decide a matter in
controversy and presupposes the existence of duly constituted court with
control over the subject matter and the parties. It is the bed-rock or
launching pad of any court in its adjudicatory process. The issue of
jurisdiction is very fundamental as it goes to the competence of the court or
tribunal. Any action taken by a court without the requisite jurisdiction is a
waste of time and a nullity. A court will, inter alia, have the necessary competence
to hear and determine a matter if same is within its jurisdiction and there is
no feature in the case, which prevents the court from exercising its
jurisdiction. (Per Fabiyi, JSC)