LEGAL PRINCIPLE: JURISDICTION – Void Judgments – Subsisting Effect Until Set Aside – Obligation to Obey Court Orders
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The option open to a person against whom an order was made or a judgment given is plain. He should apply to the court to discharge the order or appeal against the judgment that it might be set aside as the case may be. This is good sense, for as long as the order or judgment existed, it must not be disobeyed. A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction remains valid and binding, even where the person affected by it believes that it is void, until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Katsina-Alu, JSC, in Babatunde & Ors v. Olatunji & Anor (2000) NLC-1481995(SC) at p. 6; Paras A–B.
"The option open to a person against whom an order was made or a judgment given is plain. He should apply to the court to discharge the order or appeal against the judgment that it might be set aside as the case may be. This is good sense, for as long as the order or judgment existed, it must not be disobeyed. A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction remains valid and binding, even where the person affected by it believes that it is void, until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Even a void judgment remains binding and must be obeyed until set aside by a competent court. The affected party cannot unilaterally determine its validity and disobey. The proper course is to apply to discharge the order or appeal. This principle prevents chaos and maintains respect for judicial processes. No party may arrogate to themselves the power to decide which court orders to obey. The remedy is judicial challenge, not self-help. This rule applies even where the judgment appears clearly void—courts, not parties, determine validity.