LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Jurisdiction — Territorial Jurisdiction — Venue for Breach of Contract — Plaintiff Must Prove Facts Establishing Jurisdiction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The plaintiff who asserts that a court has territorial jurisdiction must adduce evidence to prove the facts establishing jurisdiction; the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the venue is proper.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Okafor v. Ezenwa (2002) NLC-601996(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras C–A.
"It was necessary to adduce evidence in support of the averments that the appellant resided at all material times in Awka in order to establish jurisdiction in the High Court Awka to entertain the suit. This was important because the venue became a territorial jurisdictional issue. The burden was on the plaintiff/respondent who asserted that the High Court Awka was the proper venue to show that he was right, for the law is that, generally, he who asserts the positive must prove it by virtue of the requirements of section 135 of the Evidence Act."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving facts that establish territorial jurisdiction. Mere averments in pleadings are insufficient; evidence must be adduced. The principle applies to venue based on residence, place of business, or place of contract. The court cannot assume jurisdiction without proof. The defendant may challenge jurisdiction. The plaintiff must satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities. The rule is based on the Evidence Act provision that he who asserts must prove. Failure to prove jurisdiction may result in the action being struck out. The principle ensures that courts only hear cases with proper territorial nexus.