ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — Ouster Clauses — Judicial Attitude to Jurisdiction-Ousting Provisions — Courts Construe Ouster Clauses Cautiously and Strictly, Requiring Strict Compliance
Principle Statement
The attitude of the courts to such provisions is that they are regarded as an aberration, outrageous provision and one that should be treated with extreme caution since they are regarded as unwarranted affront and unnecessary challenge to the jurisdiction of the courts which the courts guard jealously. Where, therefore, a person's right of access to court is taken away or restricted by either the Constitution or any statute, the language of any such provision is usually construed very cautiously and strictly. In the course of interpreting such provisions, the language of any such statute or provision will not be extended beyond its least onerous meaning unless clear words are used to justify such extension. This is mainly because it is the practice of the courts to guard its jurisdiction jealously.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Akintan, JSC, in Maikyo v. Itodo & Ors (2007) NLC-123-242-2003(SC) at pp. 10–11; Para A.
"The attitude of the courts to such provisions is that they are regarded as an aberration, outrageous provision and one that should be treated with extreme caution since they are regarded as unwarranted affront and unnecessary challenge to the jurisdiction of the courts which the courts guard jealously. Where, therefore, a person's right of access to court is taken away or restricted by either the Constitution or any statute, the language of any such provision is usually construed very cautiously and strictly. In the course of interpreting such provisions, the language of any such statute or provision will not be extended beyond its least onerous meaning unless clear words are used to justify such extension. This is mainly because it is the practice of the courts to guard its jurisdiction jealously."
Explanation / Scope
Ouster clauses that restrict access to courts are construed strictly and cautiously. Courts regard such provisions as an affront to judicial power and will not extend their meaning beyond the least onerous interpretation. Clear words are required to oust jurisdiction. Courts guard their jurisdiction jealously and will not readily interpret provisions as ousting their supervisory role.
