CIVIL PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction of Court – Ouster under Military Regime
Ratio Decidendi
Per Belgore, JSC, in Obaba v. Military Governor of Kwara State (1994) NLC-1311990(SC) at p. 7; Paras A--B:
"The Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree (No.1 of 1984) in section 5 thereof provides: '5. No question as to the validity of this or any other Decree or of any Edict shall be entertained by any court in Nigeria'"
Explanation / Scope
During military rule, ouster clauses in decrees excluded court jurisdiction over decree/edict validity. Section 5 absolutely barred courts from entertaining challenges to any decree or edict’s validity, constitutionality, or legality. This reflected military government’s supremacy and suspension of constitutional judicial review. Courts could not: declare decrees invalid, examine their constitutionality, or review their legality. However, courts retained jurisdiction to: interpret decrees/edicts, apply them to facts, and determine their scope. The ouster was absolute regarding validity challenges but didn’t eliminate all judicial function. This represented a significant limitation on judicial power during military rule, preventing checks on legislative authority. With return to democracy, such ouster clauses ceased to apply, and full judicial review was restored.