LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Waiver of Procedural Irregularity — Failure to Raise Timeously
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A distinction must be drawn between jurisdiction as a matter of procedural law and jurisdiction as a matter of substantive law. A litigant can waive procedural jurisdiction but cannot confer substantive jurisdiction where the Constitution or statute says the court has no jurisdiction.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Edozie, JSC, in Ndayako & Ors v. Dantoro & Ors (2004) NLC-1862002(SC) at pp. 20–21; Paras D–B.
"Order 3 rule 4 of the Niger State High Court Rules supra which requires that particulars of claim shall not be amended except by leave of court as well as rules on payment of requisite court fees are rules the breach of which do not infringe on the rules of natural justice and objection thereof ought appropriately to have been taken at the stage of trial and not at appellate level. It is noteworthy that a distinction must be drawn between two types of jurisdictions viz jurisdiction as a matter of procedural law and jurisdiction as a matter of substantive law. Whilst a litigant can waive the former, no litigant can confer jurisdiction in the court where the Constitution or a statute or any provision of the common law says that the court shall have no jurisdiction."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Procedural jurisdiction can be waived; substantive jurisdiction cannot. The principle applies to civil procedure. Objections to procedural irregularities must be raised timeously. The rule distinguishes between types of jurisdiction. The court will not entertain late objections. The principle is well-established.
