CIVIL PROCEDURE — Jurisdiction — Territorial Jurisdiction — Distinction Between Venue and Territorial Jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi
Per Muhammad, JSC (adopting the holding of the Court of Appeal in International Nigerbuild Construction Co. Ltd. v. Giwa (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 836) 69 at 75), in Dairo v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc & Anor (2007) NLC-123-187-2002(SC) at p. 24; Paras B–E:
"There is a world of distinction between jurisdiction as it relates to the territorial, geographical jurisdiction of a court and jurisdiction in relation to the judicial division within which to commence an action. The distinction between venue, as an aspect of jurisdiction which could be administrative or geographical, in which a suit may be heard, is often provided in the rules of court of various States of the Federation. But when it comes to territorial jurisdiction, which is whether a suit ought to have been brought in one state but brought in another, the criteria is different. In such a case, the court has no jurisdiction and it cannot be conferred by agreement or consent of the parties."
Explanation / Scope
Venue relates to the convenient geographical location within a State for hearing a suit and is usually waivable by parties. Territorial jurisdiction, however, concerns the constitutional or statutory authority of the court over the subject matter based on geographical boundaries (e.g., a High Court of Lagos cannot entertain a cause of action that arose entirely in Kano). Lack of territorial jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be cured by waiver, estoppel, or consent. The distinction is critical because error in venue leads to transfer or re-assignment, while error in territorial jurisdiction leads to dismissal.