Jurisdiction remains the lifeblood of adjudication in every legal system. In Nigeria, it determines not only whether a court can entertain a matter but also whether its decision will stand as binding law. Without jurisdiction, every proceeding no matter how brilliantly conducted—is a nullity. See…Madukolu v Nkemdilim (1962)(Full summary)
The case of Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Imo State & Ors (1982) offered the Supreme Court of Nigeria a significant opportunity to define the scope of its original jurisdiction under Section 212(1) of the 1979 Constitution. It also clarified the extent of powers of State High Courts when disputes involve the Federal Government, its agencies, or other entities.
This case is particularly intriguing because it arose during the politically sensitive 1982 voter registration exercise conducted by the Federal Electoral Commission. Several state actors and private individuals rushed to State High Courts seeking injunctions and declarations against the Commission. TheThe Attorney-General of the Federation reacted by approaching the Supreme Court directly, claiming that such suits raised disputes between the Federation and States.
The Supreme Court, however, was tasked with answering a fundamental constitutional question:Does every disagreement involving the Federal Government and matters of public rights automatically amount to a “dispute” under Section 212(1) that justifies invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction?
Facts of the Case of A.G of the Federation v. A.G of Imo State (1982)
During the voter registration exercise of 1982, three separate suits were filed almost simultaneously in different States:
In Imo state, the Attorney-General of Imo sued the Federal Electoral Commission and its Resident Commissioner, seeking declarations and injunctions.
In Ondo State, two members of the House of Assembly instituted proceedings against the same Commission.
In Lagos State, a legislator filed a similar action against the Commission, the Attorney-General of the Federation, and the Resident Commissioner.
These actions essentially challenged how the registration exercise was being carried out. The Attorney-General of the Federation, perceiving this as an encroachment on federal authority, approached the Supreme Court under Section 212(1) of the 1979 Constitution.He asked for declarations, prohibitions against the State High Courts, and injunctions restraining enforcement of any orders arising from the State suits.
The defendants objected, arguing that no proper “dispute” existed between the Federation and the States to justify the invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
Issues for Determination Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Imo State & Ors (1982)
1. Whether State High Courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits involving disputes between the Federal Government and other persons.
2. What is the limit of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Section 212(1) of the 1979 Constitution?
3. Whether wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by a State High Court over a public right amounts to a “dispute” under Section 212(1), entitling the Attorney-General of the Federation to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Decision of the Supreme Court in A.G of the Federation v. A.G of Imo State (1982)
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the Attorney-General of the Federation’s claims.Rulling on the following relevant questions:
1. Jurisdiction of State High Courts
The Court held that State High Courts have jurisdiction to entertain disputes between the Federal Government and private persons. However, where such matters involve exclusive federal issues, remedies are available through the appellate process.
2. Scope of Original Jurisdiction
The Court clarified that Section 212(1) of the 1979 Constitution granted it original jurisdiction only in justiciable disputes between the Federation and a State, involving legal rights of either party.None of the suits filed in the State High Courts involved legal rights of the Federation or of any State government; rather, they concerned the rights of private citizens to voter registration.
“The original jurisdiction of this Court is not activated by every disagreement involving the Federal Government. It must be a dispute between the Federation and a State, raising a question upon which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.”
3. Wrongful Assumption of Jurisdiction
The Court rejected the argument that wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by a State High Court automatically creates a “dispute” under Section 212(1). The remedy lies in constitutional appellate procedures—from the State High Court to the Court of Appeal, and thereafter to the Supreme Court.
“It is stretching the meaning of the word ‘dispute’ to contend that a mere wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by a State High Court constitutes a ground to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court.”
BRONIK MOTORS LTD. v. WEMA BANK LTD. (1983) Full Case Summary
Principles Established in A.G of the Federation v. A.G of Imo State (1982)
1. Supreme Court’s Original Jurisdiction is Limited: It applies only to disputes strictly between the Federation and a State, not between private individuals and federal agencies.
2. Rights of Private Citizens are Not State Rights:When a State Attorney-General sues in his capacity on behalf of citizens, this does not amount to a dispute between the State and the Federation.
3. Remedy for Wrong Jurisdiction is Appeal, Not Original Jurisdiction:The Constitution provides a clear appellate structure for correcting wrongful assumptions of jurisdiction by State courts.
Related Authorities in A.G of the Federation v. A.G of Imo State (1982)
Att-Gen. Bendel State v. Att-Gen. Federation (1981) 10 SC 1
Att-Gen. Eastern Nigeria v. Att-Gen. Federation (1964) 1 All NLR 224
Gouriet v. Union of Post Office Workers (1978) A.C. 435
Pierce v. Superior Court 96 ALR 1020
These authorities reinforced the principle that “disputes” under constitutional jurisdiction must be clearly defined and must involve legal rights of governmental parties. now let note the:
Overall Significance of A.G of the Federation v. A.G of Imo State (1982)
This decision is a cornerstone in Nigerian constitutional law. It emphasizes that jurisdiction is not merely procedural but fundamental to the legitimacy of judicial power. It also draws a clear line between disputes involving public rights of citizens and those involving the legal rights of governments.
For legal practitioners and scholars, the case demonstrates the Supreme Court’s reluctance to extend its original jurisdiction unnecessarily, preserving the constitutional balance between State High Courts, appellate courts, and the apex court.
“Jurisdiction is not to be assumed. It must be clearly established by the Constitution or statute; otherwise, the proceedings, however well conducted, remain a nullity.”
The case of Attorney-General of the Federation v. Attorney-General of Imo State & Ors (1982) firmly established the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in Nigeria. By rejecting attempts to widen Section 212(1) (1979 constitution) now 1999 section 232(1)to cover wrongful assumptions of jurisdiction by State courts, the Court safeguarded the appellate process as the proper channel for correction.
This ruling not only deepened the doctrine of jurisdiction in Nigeria but also reinforced the supremacy of constitutional interpretation in defining the limits of judicial power.
This ruling not only deepened the doctrine of jurisdiction in Nigeria but also reinforced the supremacy of constitutional interpretation in defining the limits of judicial power.
I strongly recommend you check out other cases below for more guidance on jurisdictional matters and conflicts.
BRONIK MOTORS LTD. v. WEMA BANK LTD. (1983) Full Case Summary