LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION – Courts of Unlimited Jurisdiction – Void and Voidable Orders – Distinction Inapplicable
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The contrasting legal concepts of voidness and voidability form part of the English law of contract. They are inapplicable to orders made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction in the course of contentious litigation.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogwuegbu, JSC, in Babatunde & Ors v. Olatunji & Anor (2000) NLC-1481995(SC) at p. 10; Paras A–B, adopting Lord Diplock's dictum in Isaacs v. Robertson (1984) 3 All E.R. 140 at 143.
"The contrasting legal concepts of voidness and voidability form part of the English law of contract. They are inapplicable to orders made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction in the course of contentious litigation."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The void/voidable distinction from contract law does not apply to orders of courts of unlimited jurisdiction. Such orders are either valid or they are not—they cannot be ignored as void without judicial determination. A court order, even if irregular, must be obeyed until set aside. The binary classification of contract law is inapt for court orders where jurisdictional limits are defined by statute and precedent. This principle reinforces the obligation to obey court orders regardless of perceived defects, leaving validity challenges to appellate review, not party determination.