Jurisdiction in Nigerian Law: An Analysis Through Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962)

■ Introduction

In Nigerian jurisprudence, the concept of jurisdiction is not just a preliminary matter, it is the foundation upon which judicial power rests. Without jurisdiction, a court cannot validly hear or determine a matter, no matter how meritorious the case may be. The classic judicial exposition of this principle is found in the celebrated Supreme Court decision of Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341. This case has since become the touchstone for determining whether or not a court is properly vested with jurisdiction in any given matter.
This article examines the decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim, the criteria it laid down, and its continued relevance in Nigerian legal practice.

■ Facts of the Case

The appellant, Madukolu, sued Nkemdilim over land ownership. The matter was brought before the High Court. However, the validity of the proceedings was later challenged on the ground that the trial judge had not been properly appointed at the time the case commenced. This raised a fundamental issue: could a court presided over by an improperly constituted judge exercise jurisdiction to determine a dispute?
The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which used the opportunity to clarify the scope and nature of jurisdiction in Nigerian law.

■ The Supreme Court’s Decision

Justice Bairamian, delivering the leading judgment, set out what has now become the classic threefold test of jurisdiction. He held that for a court to be competent, three essential conditions must be satisfied:

1. The court must be properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of its members.
This means that the judge or judges sitting over a case must be duly appointed and must meet the constitutional and statutory requirements to preside over that court. For example, a High Court judge cannot sit as a magistrate, and vice versa.
2. The subject matter of the case must fall within the jurisdiction of the court.
Every court in Nigeria has its jurisdiction defined either by the Constitution or by statute. If a case lies outside that jurisdiction, the court is incompetent to entertain it. For instance, a Federal High Court cannot adjudicate on chieftaincy matters, as those are reserved for State High Courts.
3. The case must come before the court initiated by due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent.
This requires that the procedures for instituting the action be followed. Where a statute prescribes pre-action notice, failure to comply strips the court of jurisdiction. Similarly, improper service of court processes can invalidate proceedings.

■ Key Legal Principles from Madukolu v. Nkemdilim

1. Jurisdiction is Fundamental:
Jurisdiction is the life-blood of adjudication. Without it, the entire proceedings are a nullity, no matter how well conducted. The court stressed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed by consent of the parties—it must be conferred by law.
2. Competence of Court:
The case highlighted that not only must the subject matter fall within the court’s jurisdiction, but the court itself must be competently constituted. Thus, a defect in the judge’s appointment can render proceedings void.
3. Due Process as a Precondition:
Jurisdiction is not only about law but also about procedure. Where parties fail to comply with statutory procedures before approaching the court, jurisdiction is ousted.

■ Contemporary Relevance

In today’s Nigerian legal system, jurisdictional challenges remain common, often forming the preliminary objection in many cases. Lawyers routinely rely on Madukolu v. Nkemdilim when arguing that a matter is improperly before a court.
The principle also underscores the importance of procedural diligence. Many potentially strong cases have failed not because of lack of merit, but because they were instituted in the wrong court or without fulfilling statutory requirements.

■ Conclusion
The decision in Madukolu v. Nkemdilim is more than six decades old, yet it remains a bedrock of Nigerian procedural law. By laying down the tripartite conditions for jurisdiction, the Supreme Court provided a guiding light that continues to shape litigation strategy and judicial reasoning.
Jurisdiction, as clarified in this case, is not a technicality, it is the very authority of the court to act. Without it, all judicial labor is in vain. As such, both litigants and lawyers must treat jurisdiction with utmost seriousness, for it is the foundation upon which justice stands.