LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION — Distinction Between Law Applicable to Cause of Action and Law Conferring Jurisdiction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The law which supports a cause of action is not necessarily co-extensive with the law which confers jurisdiction on the court. The relevant law for cause of action is the law in force when it arose, while jurisdiction is determined upon the law conferring jurisdiction at the point the action was constituted and heard.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC (as quoted by Ejiwunmi, JSC and Edozie, JSC), in Olutola v. University of Ilorin (2004) NLC-2111999(SC) at pp. 36–37; Paras E–A.
"It ought to be understood that the law which supports a cause of action is not necessarily co-extensive with the law which confers jurisdiction on the court which entertains the suit founded on that cause of action. The relevant law applicable in respect of a cause of action is the law in force at the time the cause of action arose whereas the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an action is determined upon the state of the law conferring jurisdiction at the point in time the action was constituted and heard."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Substantive law for cause of action and jurisdictional law are distinct and may differ in time. Jurisdiction is determined by law at the time of action commencement and hearing. The principle applies to civil procedure. The rule clarifies that different temporal rules govern substantive rights and court competence. A valid cause of action may be heard in a different court than originally available. Legislative changes in jurisdiction affect pending and future actions.
