- October 25, 2016
- Posted by: Stephen Azubuike
- Category: Case Law Blog
No Comments
Egunjobi v. Federal Republic of Nigeria [2013] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1342) 534 at 564, para A, Muhammad, JSC:
“Where a court discovers that it acted without jurisdiction, it can fall back on its inherent jurisdiction to set aside its decision in the matter.”
Notes:
According to Brian A. Garner (ed). Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th edition, (West Group: USA, 2009) 853, inherent powers (inherent jurisdiction) doctrine is “The principle that allows courts to deal with diverse matters over which they are thought to have intrinsic authority, such as (1) procedural rulemaking, (2) internal budgeting of courts, (3) regulating the practice of law, (4) general judicial housekeeping.”
See Usikaro v. Itsekiri Land Trustees [1991] 2 N.W.L.R (Pt. 172) 150.
In Joe-Deb Ventures Ltd & Anor. v. NDIC & Anor. (2014) LPELR-23083(CA), it was held that:
“In any case, the courts have held severally that a court has inherent jurisdiction to vary its order so as to carry its own meaning or in cases where the language used is doubtful, in order to clarify the position or correct a clerical error. See: Orukumkpor v. Itebu & Ors. 15 W.A.C.A. 39. Also, as in this instant case, that a court has also inherent power to set aside its own judgment which is a nullity such as where it acted without jurisdiction. In the case of Rossek vs. A.C.B. Ltd. (1993) 8 NWLR (pt. 312) @ p. 471, Bello, (as he then was) observed thus: “…A judgment of a court of law remains valid and effective unless it is set aside by an appeal court or by the lower court itself if it acted without jurisdiction or in the absence of an aggrieved party.”
