The Supreme Court of Nigeria Flashcards
What court is the court of final appeal
Supreme Court
What does section 230 state
This states the existence and establishment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
What section states the composition of the Supreme Court
Section 230 (2) (a)consists of the Chief Justice of Nigeria. (b) and also the number of justices required at the Supreme Court not exceeding 21, as may be prescribed by the National Assembly.
What sections make provisions for appointment under the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Section 231 (1) for Chief Justice
Section 231 (2) for Justices
Section 231 (3) for qualification for appointment of Chief Justice and Justices - qualified to practice as legal practitioner for nothing less than 15 years.
Section 231 (4) When the office Chief Justice of Nigeria’s office is vacant or the Chief Justice can not perform their duties - appointment by the president from the most senior Justices.
Section 231 (5) exception to.subsection 4
Section 288 (1) president shall ensure among the Justices is someone learned in Islamic personal law and Customary law
Section 288 (2) for qualification for appointment (a) learned in Islamic personal law - he is a legal practitioner and has been qualified for a period of not less than 15 yrs and has obtained a recognized qualification in Islamic law from institution acceptable to the NJC (b) for Customary law - a legal practitioner in Nigeria and has been qualified for a period not less than 15yrs in the opinion of the NJC considerable knowledge of experience in practice of Customary law.
Section 289 is on disqualification - grounds for not appointing - if he is a member of THE NJC and shall remain disqualified for 3 years since he ceased to be a member.
What is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Original Jurisdiction
Appeallate Jurisdiction
What section of the constitution constitutes the original Jurisdiction
Section 232 (1) The Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction over any dispute between the Federation and a state or between states, if the dispute involves a question of law or fact regarding the existence or extent of a legal right.
Section 232 (2) In addition to the jurisdiction provided by subsection (1), the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction as conferred by any Act of the National Assembly. However, no original jurisdiction shall be conferred upon the Supreme Court concerning any criminal matter.
Any decided cases on original jurisdiction
Yes. AG FED V AG ABIA STATE - it held that by virtue of Section 232 (1), any issue which calls for the interpretation of the constitution is obviously justiciable and that the instant case involves interpretation of Section 162 (2) of the Constitution.
AG ONDO STATE V. AG FEDERATION & 19 ORS - The complaint was the alleged interference with, and usurpation of the duties of the 20th defendant (FEC) in relation to the preparation for the conduct of general elections and also particularly the wrongful compilation and revision of the voters registers. This claim was directed to FEC. Preliminary objection was taken against the action on the ground that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action, and the 20th defendant is not a state. The court, upholding the objection, held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain an action that is not between the Federation and a state.
AG FEDERATION V. IMO STATE & 2 ORS - held hat its jurisdiction under section 212(1) of the 1979 constitution was a special jurisdiction, which is limited to any dispute between the Federation and a State or between States and no more. It does not cover disputes between a state and a body that is not a state or between the Federation and a ‘non-state’
PLATEAU STATE OF NIGERIA & ORS V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION - where the question raised on who must authorize the action invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In that case, the federal government declared a state of emergency in Plateau State. The office of the governor was suspended & the state house of Assembly. A sole administrator was then appointed by the president. The plaintiff challenged the comstitutionality of the declaration of state of emergency and certain actions taken in pursuit of the declaration. The defendant raised a preliminary that the action was incompetent as it was not authorized by either the sole administrator of Plateau State or the AG of Plateau State at the time the action was instituted The Supreme Court held that since the action was commenced during a state of emergency, only the sole administrator could have authorized, and the fact that he did not authorize the action renders it incompetent. The Supreme Court held that it could not in its original jurisdiction grant relief for the benefit of individuals.
The decision in question is being challenged due to the notion that allowing the beneficiaries of the state of emergency to authorize legal action against the declaration seems unreasonable. Section 20(a) of the Supreme Court Act prescribes that action by or against the federal government should be brought in the name of Attorney General of the Federation.
In A.G. Abia State & 35 Ors v. A.G. Federation, Abia, and 35 other states challenged the constitutionality of sections of the Electoral Act 2001 under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected the application of the 774 Local Government Councils to join the suit, ruling they could not invoke the Court’s original jurisdiction.
In A.G. Abia State & 35 Ors v. A.G. Federation (another case), the Supreme Court found no merit in challenging the Allocation of Revenue Order, Statutory Instrument No 9 of 2002.
In A.G. Ondo State v. A.G. Federation (2002), the Ondo State Government questioned the National Assembly’s competence to enact the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Act No. 5 of 2000, which applied nationwide.
In A.G. Adamawa State & 21 Ors v. A.G. Federation & 8 Ors, plaintiffs challenged the Allocation of Revenue Act 2004. Despite an objection on locus standi, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs had standing because the Act affected their rights to receive funds.
What section deals with the appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Section 233 (1) gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals from the Court of Appeal
Section 233 (2) An appeal shall lie from the decisions of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in the following cases:
(a) Questions of law alone in civil or criminal proceedings.
(b) Interpretation or application of the Constitution in civil and criminal matters.
(c) Contravention of Chapter IV of the Constitution in civil or criminal proceedings.
(d) Death sentences in criminal proceedings.
(e) Decisions on any question on the validity of elections, term cessation, or vacancy of the offices of the president, vice president, governor, or deputy governor.
(f) Other cases prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly.
What does the case of Aqua Limited v. Ondo State Sport Council says
This case is on the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. In that case, it was held that the provisions of the constitution have been formulated and designed to protect the rights of citizens. Consequently, the court ought to strive to enhance the construction of the right of appeal to be as of right and not by leave unless the provision is so clear, unequivocally,unambiguous in favor of a contrary view
What does Section 234 say
For the purpose of exercising any jurisdiction conferred by this Constitution or any law, the Supreme Court shall be duly constituted with at least five Justices. However, when considering appeals under sections 233(2)(b) or (c) or exercising original jurisdiction under section 232, the Court shall be constituted by seven Justices.
Being a court of final appeal, once the Supreme Court decides on an issue and the decision has been embodied in some judgment matter, can it still reopen the matter ?
The answer is NO. Nneji v. Chukwu. However, where the judgment is obtained by fraud or for any other reason is a complete nullity, the court has the discretionary power to set aside such judgment. Thus, Oputa JSC observed in Adegoke Motors v. Adesanya that the supremacy court is not a final court because we are infallible. Rather, we are infallible because we are final.
