LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Fundamental Rights — Jurisdiction of State High Court and Federal High Court in Fundamental Rights Enforcement Proceedings Is Concurrent
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Section 42(1) is a special provision which confers jurisdiction on any High Court in a State in matters of fundamental rights irrespective of who is affected. Section 230(1)(s) of the 1979 Constitution is a general provision. A later general provision is not to be interpreted as derogating from a special provision unless an intention to do so is unambiguously declared.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Grace Jack v. University of Agriculture Makurdi (2004) NLC-2622000(SC) at pp. 10–11; Paras E–A.
"Section 42(1) is a special provision which deals with matters of fundamental rights. It confers jurisdiction on any High Court in a State in matters of fundamental rights irrespective of who is affected by an action founded on such rights. On the other hand, section 230(1)(s) of the 1979 Constitution (as amended) is a general provision. The law is that where there is a special provision in a statute, a later general provision in the same statute capable of covering the same subject-matter is not to be interpreted as derogating from what has been specially provided for individually unless an intention to do so is unambiguously declared."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Section 42(1) is a special provision conferring fundamental rights jurisdiction on any High Court in a State. Section 230(1)(s) is a general provision. A later general provision does not override an earlier special provision absent unambiguous intent. The principle applies to constitutional interpretation. The rule preserves special provisions from implied repeal. The court must respect the special jurisdiction conferred by section 42(1).