Discretion in the exercise of jurisdiction in conflict cases in Nigeria

• Author: Nwapi, C.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a4
• Published date: 21 April 2022
• Date: 21 April 2022
• Pages: 94-129

94

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a4

DISCRETION IN THE EXERCISE OF

JURISDICTION IN CONFLICT CASES IN

NIGERIA

Chilenye Nwapi*

Emeka J Egbebu†

Thankgod Akazua‡

Abstract

This article analyses the jurisprudence of discretionary jurisdiction in conflicts

cases in Nigeria to interrogate the considerations of theory and practical policy

(or lack thereof) that, in the authors’ view, have influenced the development of

the relevant law and procedure. The analysis includes an assessment of whether

too much or too little weight has been given to some theories or policies. The

article discusses discretionary jurisdiction in three main situations: (1) where the

defendant is outside the jurisdiction of the forum court and, therefore, must be

served ex juris; (2) when the court is invited to decline jurisdiction based on the

doctrine of forum non conveniens; and (3) when there are parallel proceedings in a

foreign jurisdiction. A key finding is that discretionary jurisdiction in Nigeria is

highly under-theorised in the jurisprudence. Nigerian intellectuals have, for their

part, not given the subject adequate consideration. There is, therefore, a dearth of

literature to draw on. The article sifts through the rules of court and court decisions

to discover the theoretical and practical considerations for the courts’ exercise of

discretionary jurisdiction in the three situations mentioned.

Keywords: jurisdiction; discretion; service ex juris; forum non conveniens;

parallel proceedings; lis alibi pendens; Nigeria

Résumé

Cet article analyse la jurisprudence relative à la compétence discrétionnaire dans

les affaires de conflits au Nigéria afin d’interroger les considérations de théorie

et de politique pratique (ou leur absence) qui, selon les auteurs, ont influencé le

développement de la loi et de la procédure pertinentes. L’analyse comprend une

évaluation de l’existence de théories ou de politiques auxquelles on a accordé

trop ou trop peu de poids. L’article traite de la compétence discrétionnaire dans

trois situations principales: (1) lorsque le défendeur est hors de la juridiction du

tribunal du for et doit donc être signifié ex juris, (2) lorsque le tribunal est invité

à décliner sa compétence sur la base de la doctrine du forum non conveniens, et

* Research Associate, Canadian Institute of Resources Law, University of Calgary, Calgary,

Canada. Email: cnwapi@ucalgary.ca.

† Senior Mag istrate, Imo State Judiciary, Owerri, Nigeria. Email: get2emmy@gmail.com.

‡ 4th Year Law Student, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Email: akazuathankgod@

gmail.com.

(2022) 9(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 94

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

DISCRETION IN THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION IN CONFLICT CASES

IN NIGERIA 95

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a4

(3) lorsqu’il existe des procédures parallèles dans une juridiction étrangère. L’une des

principales conclusions de l’article est que la compétence discrétionnaire au Nigeria

est fortement sous-théorisée dans la jurisprudence. Les intellectuels nigérians n’ont,

pour leur part, pas accordé à ce sujet une attention suffisante. Il n’y a donc pas

beaucoup de littérature sur laquelle s’appuyer. L’article passe au crible les règles de

procédure et les décisions judiciaires pour découvrir les considérations théoriques et

pratiques de l’exercice de la compétence discrétionnaire par les tribunaux dans les

trois situations mentionnées.

Mots-clés : Compétence; discrétion; signification ex juris; forum non

conveniens; procédures parallèles; litispendance; Nigeria

Introduction

In the realm of conflict of laws, a court invested with jurisdiction over a

dispute is not duty-bound to exercise it. Rather, it has the discretion to

decline to exercise jurisdiction that it otherwise ordinarily has in a duly

commenced action.1 Several distinct situations can invite a consideration

of the court’s discretionary authority, namely: (1) where the defendant is

outside the forum (service outside jurisdiction); (2) where there are two

or more competing forums with undisputed jurisdiction over a dispute,

but with the forums having varying degrees of practical suitability for

the adjudication of the dispute. Here, one forum is to be considered

a more suitable forum (the doctrine of forum non conveniens (FNC));

(3) where there are existing parallel proceedings in competing forums with

unchallenged jurisdiction (parallel litigation). The question here is: Which

forum should defer to the other and why? (4) where a foreign jurisdiction

clause exists in a contract. The question here is: Should the domestic court

uphold the foreign jurisdiction clause and decline jurisdiction, or disregard

the clause and exercise jurisdiction, and under what circumstances?; and

(5) under the doctrine of forum necessitatis (forum of necessity, also called

jurisdiction by necessity). This still emerging doctrine in jurisdictional

law allows a court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute that it ordinarily

lacks when it determines that there is no other judicial forum in which

the dispute may be litigated or in which the plaintiff may reasonably be

expected to bring the action.2 The overriding consideration is, thus, the

1 Shapiro, D.L. ‘Jurisdiction and discretion’ (1985) 60 NYU L Rev 543 at 547. Austen Parrish

has argued that courts do not have an ‘unflagging obligation’ to hear cases properly brought before

them and that courts ‘commonly decline to hear cases even though jurisdiction has attached in

multiple contexts’. Those contexts include the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens,

the abstention doctrine, the exhaustion of remedies doctrine and the doctrine of supplemental

jurisdiction. Parrish concludes that ‘the appropriate question to ask then is not whether courts may

decline jurisdiction … but whether declining jurisdiction in a particular context is wise’. Austen

L Parrish ‘Duplicative foreign litigation’ (2010) 78 George Washington Law Review 237 at 257–258.

2 Nwapi, C. ‘A necessary look at necessity jurisdiction’ (2014) 47 UBC Law Rev 211;

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

96 JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW IN AFRICA VOL 9, NO 1, 2022

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a4

need to avoid a total denial of access to justice to the aggrieved plaintiff.3

Forum necessitatis differs from the other situations because it enables a

court to assume and exercise jurisdiction that it ordinarily lacks, whereas

in the other situations, the court is called upon to consider whether to

exercise or to decline to exercise jurisdiction that (at least prima facie) it

competently has.

This article is concerned primar ily with the first three situations,

ie, the foreign defendant, FNC and parallel proceedings. The fourth

situation (foreign jurisdiction clause) is touched upon during the

consideration of FNC because most FNC cases in Nigeria have involved

the applicability of foreign jurisdiction clauses. It would, therefore, be

repetitive to consider them separately. The fifth situation (forum necessitatis)

has not yet been considered in the jurisprudence of jurisdiction in Nigeria

and, therefore, does not merit this inquiry.

This article critically analyses the questions raised under the first three

situations and the grounds upon which the courts have exercised or

declined to exercise jurisdiction in those situations in Nigeria. The aim

is to probe the considerations of theory and practical policy (or lack

thereof) that, in the authors’ view, have influenced the development of

the relevant law and procedure. The analysis includes an assessment of

whether too much or too little weight has been given to some theories

or policies. To enrich the discussion, comparative glances are cast at the

state of the law and procedure in other jurisdictions, such as Canada, the

European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States

of America (US). The three situations are considered in turn in sections 2,

3 and 4. Section 5 concludes the article.

Service outside jurisdiction

Jurisdiction—understood as the authority to ‘speak the law’,4 or, more

simply, a court’s power to preside over a dispute—can be considered in

three senses. In a substantive sense, jurisdiction refers to authority over a

class or subject matter of a dispute, ie, the conduct that gave rise to the

dispute or around which the dispute arose. Jurisdiction may also be used in

a territor ial sense to signify the geographical boundar ies before which the

court’s authority stops. Anything that happens beyond the set boundaries

Nwapi, C. ‘Jurisdiction by necessity and the regulation of the transnational corporate actor’ (2014)

30(78) Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 24.

3 Ibid. See also Redfield, S. ‘Searching for justice: The use of forum necessitatis’ (2014) 45 Geog J

Int’l Law 893; Roorda, L. & Ryngaert, C. ‘Business and human rights litigation in Europe and Canada:

The promises of forum of necessity jurisdiction’ (2016) 8(4) Rabels Zeitschrift für Internationales und

Ausländisches Privatrecht 783–816; Walker, J. ‘Muscutt misplaced: The future of forum of necessity

jurisdiction in Canada’ (2009) 48 Can Bus LJ 135–143.

4 Dor sett, S. & McVeigh, S. ‘Questions of jurisdiction’ in McVeigh, S. (ed) Jurisprudence of

Jurisdiction (2007) at 3; Douzinas, C. ‘The metaphysics of jurisdiction’ in McVeigh, S. (ed) Jurisprudence

of Jurisdiction (2007) at 22.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd