LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Jurisdiction — Distinction Between Lack of Jurisdiction and Irregular Exercise of Jurisdiction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
There is a distinction between an order a court is not competent to make (lack of jurisdiction) and an order that, even if erroneous, is within the court's competency. Where there is no jurisdiction, proceedings are void. An irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction does not affect the validity of the exercise of jurisdiction.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ejiwunmi, JSC, in Ibori v. Agbi & Ors (2004) NLC-972003(SC) at pp. 40–41; Paras E–A.
"A court is said to be of competent jurisdiction with regard to a suit or other proceeding when it has power to hear or determine it or exercise any judicial power therein. There is a distinction between an order or judgment which a court is not competent to make and an order which, even if erroneous in law or in fact, is within the court's competency: where there is no jurisdiction the proceedings are void; but where a court of competent jurisdiction makes an erroneous order, it is appealable. An irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction should not be confused with a total lack of jurisdiction... The court below was right in holding that the mistake of the court in not conforming with the provisions of section 157(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code did not affect the undoubted exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Lack of jurisdiction voids proceedings; irregular exercise does not. The principle applies to all courts. Erroneous orders within jurisdiction are appealable, not void. The rule distinguishes between fundamental defects and procedural errors. The court retains jurisdiction despite irregularities. The principle is fundamental.