PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

The clear and unambiguous provisions of section 3(3) of the Public Officers (Special Provisions) Decree No. 17 of 1984 ousted the jurisdiction of the trial High Court completely.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Kutigi, JSC, in B.A. Shitta-Bey v. Attorney General of the Federation & Anor (1998) NLC-471992(SC) at pp. 37–38; Paras B–D.
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as analysed above, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the provision of section 3(3) above which are clear and unambiguous ousted the jurisdiction of the trial High Court completely."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Ouster clauses in Decrees are effective to remove court jurisdiction. The court must give effect to clear and unambiguous language. The principle applies to military Decrees. The court cannot entertain actions covered by ouster clauses. The rule reflects the supremacy of Decrees during military regimes. The party challenging jurisdiction must show that the ouster clause does not apply.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE