LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Ouster Clause — Interpretation of Ouster Clause — No Ouster Clause Can Protect Inferior Court or Tribunal Against Violation of Jurisdictional Limits
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
No ouster clause in the law establishing an inferior court or tribunal can protect it against a violation of its jurisdictional limits; it can only hide behind the ouster clause when acting within jurisdiction.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Onyeanusi v. Miscellaneous Offences Tribunal (2002) NLC-491996(SC) at p. 20; Paras A–C.
"When a law establishing an inferior court or tribunal sets out the jurisdiction of that court or tribunal, the intention is that that jurisdiction must not be exceeded. No ouster clause in the law establishing the said court or tribunal can protect it against a violation of its jurisdictional limits. It is only when the court or tribunal acts within jurisdiction set for it and in that regard does or purports to do anything that it can hide behind the ouster clause."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Ouster clauses cannot protect acts done in excess of jurisdiction. The court retains jurisdiction to determine whether the tribunal acted within its powers. The principle is fundamental to the rule of law. The tribunal cannot insulate itself from review by an ouster clause if it exceeds its jurisdiction. The court will examine the jurisdictional limits. The rule applies to all inferior courts and tribunals. The applicant may challenge the tribunal’s jurisdiction despite an ouster clause. The principle ensures that ouster clauses are not absolute. The court will not allow tribunals to act without legal authority. The rule is based on Anisminic v. Foreign Compensation Commission. The ouster clause is a shield, not a sword.