LEGAL PRINCIPLE: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — Retrospective Operation — Presumption Against Retrospective Effect Absent Clear Legislative Intention
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A provision ousting court jurisdiction shall be narrowly and strictly construed, unless it clearly and unambiguously states otherwise. It shall also not be made to apply retrospectively to affect acquired rights or pending litigations, unless such intention is manifestly and unambiguously made clear.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Wali, JSC, in Kotoye v. Saraki & Anor (1994) NLC-1471993(SC) at pp. 14–15; Paras D–A.
"It is a well established principle of interpretation of statutes that where the provision of any law ousts the jurisdiction of court on any matter such a provision shall be narrowly and strictly construed, unless it clearly and unambiguously states so. See Dove v. Dove (1963) p.321, (1993) 2 WLR 714. ... It shall also not be made to apply retrospectively to affect the acquired right before it or to affect litigations pending in court, unless such intention is manifestly and unambiguously made clear in it."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Ouster clauses cannot apply retrospectively to affect acquired rights or pending litigation. Clear and unambiguous legislative intent is required for retrospective application. The principle applies to statutory interpretation. The rule protects vested rights from subsequent legislation. The court will presume prospective operation only. Any ambiguity about retrospective effect is resolved against retrospectivity.
