LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Effect of Lack of Jurisdiction — Proceedings Conducted Without Jurisdiction Are a Nullity
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A court is bound to put an end to its proceedings if at any stage it becomes manifest that they are incompetent. It can do so on its own initiative, even though parties have consented to the irregularity, because mere acquiescence does not give jurisdiction.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Lord Wright (as quoted by Ejiwunmi, JSC), in Olutola v. University of Ilorin (2004) NLC-2111999(SC) at pp. 22–23; Paras E–A.
"Now it is clear that a court is not entitled but bound to put an end to its proceedings if at any stage and by any means it becomes manifest that they are incompetent. It can do so on its own initiative, even though the parties have consented to the irregularity, because, as Willes, J. said in City of London Corporation v. Cox (1986) LR. 2 H.L. 239, 283, in the course of giving answers of the judges to the House, 'mere acquiescence does not give jurisdiction'."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Proceedings conducted without jurisdiction are a nullity. The court must terminate them whenever lack of jurisdiction becomes manifest. The principle applies to all courts and proceedings. The rule operates even if parties consented or acquiesced. Acquiescence cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists. The court has a duty to raise jurisdiction issues suo motu.
