LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Demurrer — Distinction from Objection to Jurisdiction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Equating demurrer with objection to jurisdiction can be misleading. In demurrer, the defendant accepts the plaintiff's facts as true but contends that the plaintiff has no cause of action. Jurisdiction is more fundamental and does not depend entirely on what the plaintiff pleads.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Arjay Ltd & Ors v. Airline Management Support Ltd (2003) NLC-1122000(SC) at pp. 38–39; Paras E–B.
"The tendency to equate demurrer with objection to jurisdiction could be misleading. It is a standing principle that in demurrer, the plaintiff must plead and it is upon that pleading that the defendant will contend that accepting all the facts pleaded to be true, the plaintiff has no cause of action, or, where appropriate, no locus standi. But as already shown, the issue of jurisdiction is not a matter for demurrer proceedings. It is much more fundamental than that and does not, entirely depend as such on what a plaintiff may plead as facts to prove the reliefs he seeks."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Demurrer and jurisdiction are distinct. The principle applies to civil procedure. Demurrer assumes facts are true; jurisdiction challenges the court’s power. The rule prevents confusion. Jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. The principle is fundamental.