JURISDICTION — Ouster Clause — Effect of Repeal of Enactment Containing Ouster Clause on Acts Done Thereunder
Principle Statement
The repeal of a law does not invalidate acts lawfully done and concluded while that law was in force. Although a repealed statute is treated as if it never existed, it continues to have effect for acts, rights, and proceedings that were commenced, executed, or concluded during its subsistence.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Mukhtar, JSC, in Abubakar v. Bebeji Oil and Allied Products Ltd (2007) NLC-123-110-2001(SC) at p. 16; Paras D–E.
"Whatever obtained as at the time the Decree No. 37 of 1968 had life will continue up to the point of repeal, and it cannot be said that the repeal of that law would two years after the act done there under negatively affect the act done when the Decree was still alive and in existence. When an act is repealed it is taken as though it never existed, except the actions, which were commenced, executed and concluded at the time the act was in existence."
Explanation / Scope
This principle embodies the common law rule against retrospective operation of repeals. The repeal of a statute, including one containing an ouster clause, does not retroactively destroy rights, liabilities, or proceedings that crystallized under it. The “oblivion” effect of repeal only applies to the future. Thus, any jurisdictional bar or act done under the repealed enactment remains valid and binding. The rule ensures legal certainty and protects concluded transactions and decisions from being destabilized by subsequent legislative changes. It applies unless the repealing statute expressly provides otherwise.
