LAND LAW — Land Use Act 1978 — Jurisdiction Over Land Matters — Sections 39, 41 and 42 Confer Jurisdiction on State High Courts, Not Federal High Court
Principle Statement
It is quite clear from the provisions of the above Sections of the Land Use Act with specific powers and jurisdiction in respect of land matters specified therein conferred on State High Court, Area Court, Customary Court and Magistrate Court that the Federal High Court is not one of the Courts conferred with jurisdiction to entertain any dispute in land matters.
Ratio Decidendi (Source)
Per Mohammed, JSC, in Adetayo & Ors v. Ademola & Ors (2010) NLC-123-229-2004(SC) at p. 13; Paras B–D.
"It is quite clear from the provisions of the above Sections of the Land Use Act with specific powers and jurisdiction in respect of land matters specified therein conferred on State High Court, Area Court, Customary Court and Magistrate Court that the Federal High Court is not one of the Courts conferred with jurisdiction to entertain any dispute in land matters."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction over land matters under the Land Use Act; such jurisdiction is conferred on State High Courts and other specified courts. The principle applies where land disputes are brought before the Federal High Court. It ensures that land matters are heard in the correct forum. The principle reflects the statutory allocation of jurisdiction. It prevents the Federal High Court from entertaining land disputes. The court must strike out matters brought in the wrong court. The principle provides guidance on jurisdiction over land matters.
