JURISDICTION — Statute-Barred Action — Effect — Proceeding Commenced Without Jurisdiction Is a Nullity
Principle Statement
A proceeding that emanated from a court without jurisdiction is one that never took place at all, because the court should not have entertained the suit, for it is incompetent to do so. … The court of first instance had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, and so its decision was a nullity and has to be treated as such (even if at that stage the issue of limitation of action was not raised).
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Mukhtar, JSC, in FRIN v. Gold (2007) NLC-123-40-2004(SC) at p. 12; Paras A–C.
"A proceeding that emanated from a court without jurisdiction is one that never took place at all, because the court should not have entertained the suit, for it is incompetent to do so. … The court of first instance had no jurisdiction to hear the matter, and so its decision was a nullity and has to be treated as such (even if at that stage the issue of limitation of action was not raised)."
Explanation / Scope
Where an action is statute-barred, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it. Any proceedings conducted and judgment delivered are a nullity. The issue of limitation goes to jurisdiction and can be raised at any stage, even on appeal. The decision is void and cannot be enforced. Jurisdiction is fundamental; without it, the court’s proceedings are non-existent.
