LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Jurisdiction — Orders Intrinsic to Substantive Suit Distinguished from Orders Extrinsic to Substantive Suit
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Orders intrinsic to the substantive suit are impaired if the court lacks jurisdiction. Orders extrinsic to the substantive suit remain valid and binding regardless of the jurisdiction to hear the substantive suit.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Oguntade, JSC, in Ebhodaghe v. Okoye (2004) NLC-2182000(SC) at pp. 19–20; Paras E–A.
"There are orders, which are intrinsic to the substantive suit such that a decision that a court has no jurisdiction necessarily and without further ado impairs such orders. On the other hand there may be orders which are extrinsic to the substantive suit with the result that no matter what view one takes of the jurisdiction of the court to hear the substantive suit, the orders remain valid and binding."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Extrinsic orders (like contempt orders) survive a finding of no jurisdiction. The principle applies to civil procedure. Intrinsic orders are tied to the substantive suit. The rule distinguishes between order types. The court may enforce extrinsic orders even without jurisdiction over the main suit. The principle is well-established.
