LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Jurisdiction of High Court – State Law Cannot Derogate from Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A state law cannot seek to derogate or circumscribe the provisions of section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution. Any attempt to do so would be inconsistent with that constitutional provision and therefore void.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Osagie v. Offor (1998) NLC-1821991(SC) at pp. 5–6; Paras A–C.
"Section 22(2), (3) and (6) of the Bendel State Chieftaincy Law 1979 cannot in any way seek to derogate or circumscribe the provisions of section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution. Any attempt to so do would make it inconsistent with that constitutional provision and therefore to that extent void. A decision that it delay the right of an aggrieved party to come to court, or that it is a condition precedent to the exercise of a right to file an action to be entertained by the High Court, seeks to circumscribe the powers of the High Court under section 236(1) of the Constitution and to that extent it is void and of no effect."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Constitutional provisions on High Court jurisdiction are supreme. State laws cannot limit or derogate from them. Any inconsistent state law is void. The principle applies to all attempts to restrict High Court jurisdiction. The court will declare such provisions unconstitutional. The rule protects access to the High Court.
