LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Customary Courts — Determination of Jurisdiction — Need to Consider Both Claim and Defence in Customary Court Proceedings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In an Area Customary Court, a party's claim cannot be ascertained properly until he gives evidence. It is the reaction of the defendant to the testimony of the plaintiff which helps the court to determine whether it has jurisdiction to adjudicate in the dispute or not.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Mohammed, JSC, in Erhunmwunse v. Ehanire (2003) NLC-1011999(SC) at p. 8; Paras A–B.
"It is indeed settled law through a chain of decided cases that it is the claim of the plaintiff which determines the jurisdiction of the court. In an Area Customary Court however, a party's claim cannot be ascertained properly until he gives evidence. It will be the reaction of the defendant to the testimony of the plaintiff which helps the court to determine whether it has jurisdiction to adjudicate in the dispute or not."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
In Area Customary Courts, jurisdiction is determined after evidence and the defendant’s reaction. The principle applies to customary court procedure. The claim alone may not suffice. The rule recognises the informality of customary courts. The court will examine the substance. The principle is well-established.