CIVIL PROCEDURE — Discontinuance of suit — Vacation jurisdiction — Want of jurisdiction as ground of urgency
Ratio Decidendi
Per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC, in Onwuka v. Ononuju & Ors (2009) NLC-123-246-2002(SC) at p. 24; Paras D-E:
"Having scrutinized the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9(2) supra upon which the application to discontinue this case has been premised the issue of jurisdiction as a matter of urgent nature is a far cry from being one of the preconditions to be met in order to bring the provisions of Order 26 Rule 9(2)(b) and (c) into play. It is the urgency of a matter or cause that is pivotal and what may constitute urgent circumstances cannot be exhaustively defined."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that want of jurisdiction is not itself a ground of urgency for vacation applications. The pivotal factor is the urgency of the matter or cause. What constitutes urgent circumstances cannot be exhaustively defined. The principle applies where a party seeks to invoke vacation jurisdiction based on jurisdiction issues. It ensures that urgency is the key consideration. The principle reflects the need for genuine urgency. It prevents parties from using jurisdiction as a pretext for vacation applications. The court must determine if the matter is truly urgent. The principle provides guidance on the scope of vacation jurisdiction.