Territorial jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) and the requirement of endorsing originating processes under the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (SCPA) determined

• Author: Eyongndi, D.T-A.
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a6
• Published date: 21 April 2022
• Date: 21 April 2022
• Citation: (2022) 9(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 162
• Pages: 162-177

162

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a6

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF

NIGERIA (NICN) AND THE REQUIREMENT

OF ENDORSING ORIGINATING PROCESSES

UNDER THE SHERIFFS AND CIVIL PROCESS

ACT (SCPA) DETERMINED

David Tarh-Akong Eyongndi*

Stephen Idowu Ilesanmi†

Abstract

When a case is filed at the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), apart

from its Civil Procedure Rules, the service of originating processes in Nigeria is

regulated by the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act (SCPA), just as in all other courts

under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999 CFRN).

The SCPA requires that, when an originating process is issued in one State but

is to be served in another, there must be an endorsement on the process disclosing

this fact, or else the service shall be rendered void. Is this requirement of the SCPA

applicable to the NICN, and what effect does it have on its efficiency, given that the

NICN is a specialised court dealing with matters requiring expeditious settlement,

free of technicalities? This article, using doctrinal methodology, will catec hise the

territorial jurisdiction of the NICN vis-à-vis the SCPA on endorsement of

originating processes by appraising the Court of Appeal’s decision in Johnson v

Eze where it held that the provisions of ss 97, 98 and 99 of the SCPA are

inapplicable to the NICN because of s 2 of the SCPA, s 21(1) andd(2) of the

National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and Order 7, Rule 15(1) and (2) of the

NICN Rules, 2017. The effect of the judgment on the jurisdiction and mandate of

the NICN under extant laws is also discussed. The authors argue that making the

court amenable to the provisions of the SCPA will usher in technicalities that can

frustrate the mandate of the NICN. Thus, the decision is a welcome development,

which should not be overturned in subsequent decisions.

Keywords: NICN; orig inating process; territorial jurisdiction; service of

court process; technicalities

* LLB (Hons) UNICAL LLM (Ibadan) BL; Lecturer, College of Law, Bowen University,

Iwo, Osun State, Nigeria. Email: david.eyongndi@bowen.edu.ng or eyongndidavid@gmail.com;

Telephone +2348093618996.

† LLB (Hons) LLM (OAU) BL; Lecturer, Department of Jur isprudence and International Law,

Faculty of Law, University of Ibadan. Email: si.ilesanmi@ui.edu.ng or sanmisteve09@yahoo.com;

Telephone: +234803242162.

(2022) 9(1) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 162

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE NICN AND THE REQUIREMENT OF

ENDORSING ORIGINATING PROCESSES UNDER THE SCPA DETERMINED 163

https://doi.org/10.47348/JCLA/v9/i1a6

Résumé

Lorsqu’une affaire est déposée auprès du NICN, outre ses règles de procédure

civile, la signification des actes introductifs d’instance au Nigeria est régie par

la SCPA, comme dans toutes les autres juridictions en vertu de la Constitution

Fédérale du Nigeria de 1999 (1999 CFRN). La SCPA exige que, lorsqu’un

acte introductif d’instance émis dans un État doit être signifié dans un autre, il doit

être accompagné d’une mention indiquant ce fait, faute de quoi la signification sera

nulle. Cette exigence du SCPA est-elle applicable au NICN, et quel effet a-t-elle

sur son efficacité, étant donné que le NICN est un tribunal spécialisé traitant des

affaires nécessitant un règlement rapide et exempt de détails techniques? Cet article,

par le biais d’une méthodologie doctrinale, analyse la compétence territoriale du

NICN par rapport au SCPA sur l’approbation des processus d’origine en évaluant

la décision de la Cour d’appel dans l’affaire Johnson v. Eze où il a été décidé que

les dispositions des ss 97, 98 et 99 du SCPA sont inapplicables au NICN en

raison des ss 2 du SCPA, 21(1) (2) du NIC Acte, 2006 et de l’Ordre 7 Règle

15(1) (2) des Règles du NICN, 2017. L’effet de l’arrêt sur la compétence et le

mandat du NICN en vertu des lois en vigueur est également discuté. Il fait valoir

que le fait de rendre la cour accessible aux dispositions de la SCPA entraînera des

détails techniques qui peuvent entraver le mandat du NICN. Ainsi, la décision

est un développement bienvenu qui ne devrait pas être renversé dans des décisions

ultérieures.

Mots-clés : NICN; acte introductif d’instance; compétence terr itoriale;

signification d’actes judiciaires; formalités

Introduction

Courts are created by statutes and the statute that creates a court gives the

court its power and jurisdiction.1 Where a court is empowered to exercise

jurisdiction over a subject, any person whose action or omission causes

a legally redressable injury to another is made to face legal proceedings,

as the law/equity will not suffer a wrong to be committed without a

remedy.2 The jur isdiction of the court is germane to legal proceedings;

any proceedings, no matter how well conducted, in want of jurisdiction

are regarded as null and void.3 A court’s jurisdiction is to legal proceedings

what blood and the heart are to the body of a living thing.4 There are

several aspects to jurisdiction, which include subject matter, monetary

aspects, cause of action and the parties etc.5 Jurisdiction is a threshold issue

and fundamental to adjudication. Where a person commences a case in

court, the originating process, once issued, is to be served on the adverse

1 Anyanwoko v Okoye [2010] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 497.

2 Bello v Attorney General, Oyo State & Ors [1986] 12 SC1.

3 Attor ney General, Kwara State v Adeyemo [2017] 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 210.

4 Gaji v Paye [2003] 8 NWLR (Pt. 823) 583.

5 Ibrahim v Independent National Electoral Commission [1999] 8 NWLR (Pt. 614) 334.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd