NIMASA v. Ihenacho [2026]

By

Introduction

A court that has no business hearing a case does not, by pointing a finger at another court, suddenly acquire the power to redirect traffic. This appeal turned on precisely that question — what should an appellate court actually do once it decides the trial court below never had jurisdiction in the first place? The Supreme Court, unanimously, allowed the appeal.

Fact of the Case

The first and second respondents sued the appellant, along with the third to fifth respondents, at the High Court of Lagos State. The appellant raised a preliminary objection, arguing among other things that the Lagos State High Court lacked jurisdiction over the claims, and that jurisdiction instead belonged to the Federal High Court.

The trial court disagreed and held that it did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The appellant, unhappy with that ruling, appealed to the Court of Appeal — and won on that specific point. The Court of Appeal agreed that the Lagos State High Court had no jurisdiction over the matter. But rather than simply striking the suit out, the Court of Appeal went further: invoking its own powers under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, and section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act, it ordered the case transferred to the Federal High Court for accelerated hearing and determination.

That transfer order is what brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The appellant, though it had won the jurisdiction argument, was now unhappy with the remedy the Court of Appeal had fashioned.

Appellant's Case at the Supreme Court

The appellant's argument was narrow but pointed: once the Court of Appeal found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the only order properly available to it was to strike the suit out. Transferring the case onward to the Federal High Court, the appellant contended, was something the Court of Appeal had no power to do in these circumstances — a court cannot pass along a case that the court below it was never competent to hear in the first place.

First and Second Respondents' Case at the Supreme Court

The respondents defended the transfer order, arguing that section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act gives that court broad power to make whatever orders are necessary to ensure that matters are actually determined on their merits, rather than lost to a technicality. On their reading, the consequential transfer order was a legitimate exercise of that broad remedial power, and section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act supplied the specific statutory basis allowing a state High Court's case to move over to the Federal High Court once jurisdiction was found lacking.

Resolution of the Question for Determination

The Supreme Court's answer turned on a distinction the respondents' argument had missed entirely: the general rule that a court lacking jurisdiction must strike out the case before it, set against a narrow, specific exception that Parliament had built into the Federal High Court Act — one that, crucially, only runs in one direction.

The Court confirmed that where the Federal High Court itself finds it lacks jurisdiction over a suit, section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act does allow it to transfer that suit onward to the appropriate state High Court. But the reverse power — allowing a state High Court to transfer a case to the Federal High Court once it finds itself without jurisdiction — rested on a different provision, section 22(3), which the Supreme Court had already, in earlier decisions, declared a nullity: Parliament had no constitutional competence to legislate that particular power into existence. A state High Court has no rule of procedure of its own, and no valid statutory basis, allowing it to transfer a matter to the Federal High Court.

Since the underlying difficulty here was the Lagos State High Court's own lack of jurisdiction, and since section 22(3) — the only provision that might have supported moving the case to the Federal High Court — had already been declared void, there was no valid legal foundation for the transfer the Court of Appeal ordered. The Court also firmly rejected the idea that the Court of Appeal's general power under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act could fill that gap. That general power to make consequential orders, the Court held, cannot be stretched to manufacture a transfer authority that the specific governing statute does not actually grant. Where the High Court below had no jurisdiction and no power to transfer, the Court of Appeal, standing in its shoes for this purpose, likewise had no power to transfer on its behalf. The only order properly available was to strike the suit out.

The Court closed with a broader reminder about how precedent works: a decided case is only authority for what it actually decided, on the facts before it — a principle that mattered here because parts of the respondents' argument had leaned on authorities that did not, on close reading, actually support transferring a matter in these specific circumstances.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court held that since the Lagos State High Court lacked jurisdiction and had no power under the law to transfer the suit to the Federal High Court, the Court of Appeal likewise had no power to make that transfer on its behalf. The only proper order was to strike the suit out. The appeal was allowed, and the Court of Appeal's transfer order was set aside.

Appeal allowed.

Key Takeaways

  • A court that lacks jurisdiction over a matter generally has one proper order available: strike it out. It cannot improvise a more "practical" alternative unless a specific statute actually grants that power.
  • Transfer powers between courts run in only one direction unless clear statutory authority says otherwise. The Federal High Court can transfer a case it can't hear to a state High Court, but the reverse power for a state High Court was struck down as unconstitutional.
  • A general remedial power can't manufacture a specific one that doesn't exist. The Court of Appeal's broad authority to make consequential orders doesn't stretch far enough to invent a transfer power the governing statute never granted.
  • Precedent only extends as far as what a case actually decided. Authorities cited out of context, without matching facts, won't rescue an argument built on a power that was never really there.

In Practice

Litigants, counsel and courts sometimes opt for practical remedy— like transferring a case from a state high court to another that has the appropriate jurisdiction to entertain such suit. It is not uncommon to have such arrangement especially where territorial jurisdiction is up for debate. This saves the litigants cost and time they would have spent in instituting the matter afresh. While case files can move from one division of state high court to another, it cannot validly move from a state high court to the federal high court. This is so because a state high court has no such procedural rules of its own, and no valid statutory authority, allowing it to transfer a matter to the federal high court. The federal high court can however validly transfer a suit to the state high court as section 22 (2) of the Federal High Court Act 2019 grants its such powers where it finds that it does not have the jurisdiction to entertain such suit. Surprisingly, section 22 (3) of the Federal High Court Act 2019 confers on a state high court and high court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the powers to transfer suits to the federal high court when there is no such corresponding authority in any known procedural rules of these respective courts. Section 22 (3) has now been nullified by the supreme court in its earlier decisions.

Jurisdiction is what gives the court the powers to adjudicate on a suit. Where a court lacks jurisdiction, its actions in respect of that suit becomes a nullity. Litigants may want to confirm with their counsel the appropriate court to have their matters filed. Counsel are advised to get acquainted with chapter VII of the 1999 constitution which spelt out the jurisdiction of courts before deciding to file an action before any particular court as filing a suit in the wrong court is resources and time consuming.

Related Reading

This case sits well alongside other posts on this blog dealing with jurisdiction, transfer powers, and what courts can and cannot do once they find they lack competence over a matter:

This post is based on the Supreme Court's judgment and is intended for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tenant at Will or Yearly Tenant? What a Landlord-Tenant Dispute Teaches Us About Proving Oral Agreements: Odutola v. Papersack (Nig.) Ltd. (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1012) 470 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
Image
If you've ever relied on a verbal understanding instead of getting it in writing, this case is a cautionary tale. It's a dispute over a warehouse in Lagos that turned entirely on one question: can you prove a tenancy existed just by saying so — or does the law demand more? The Property at the Centre of It All The dispute concerned premises at 44, Eric Moore Road, Iganmu Industrial Estate, Lagos. The first appellant owned the property outright and was also the founder, majority shareholder, and Managing Director of the second appellant, a company that had taken over the unexpired interest in the property from December 1991. According to the appellants, the original tenant of the property was a different company entirely — Thoresen and Co. (Nig.) Ltd — whose tenancy expired in 1980, then got a brief extension to 1982. The respondent, Papersack (Nig.) Ltd, moved into the property during Thoresen's tenancy, initially without the appellants' consent. It later paid rent for a...
Read more

F.R.N. v. Lamido [2026]

By
Image
A note before we begin: the underlying criminal trial in this matter is not concluded. This appeal was about a preliminary ruling only — whether the trial court had the territorial jurisdiction to hear the case at all, and a procedural question about how the notice of appeal was framed. Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision below is a finding of guilt or innocence on the substantive charges, which the trial court has now been directed to continue hearing. The respondent is presumed innocent unless and until that trial concludes with a finding to the contrary. Introduction This was an appeal by the Federal Republic of Nigeria against a Court of Appeal ruling that had discharged the respondent from a money laundering and conspiracy charge, on the basis that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear it. The Supreme Court, unanimously, allowed the appeal and sent the matter back for the trial to continue. Fact of the Case The respondent, together with seven othe...
Read more

You Struck Out the Plaintiff's Claim— But You Still Owe Him a Hearing Notice: Osumuo v. Udeaja [2026] 11 NWLR (Pt. 2052) 443 — Supreme Court of Nigeria

By
Imagine winning a court case worth a piece of prime land in Nnewi — only to have that victory wiped out years later, not because your evidence was weak, but because the man on the other side never got a notice telling him when to show up. That is the entire story of Osumuo v. Udeaja. It is a reminder that in Nigerian courts, a judgment can be procedurally spotless and legally doomed at the same time, if one small, unglamorous document — the hearing notice — never left the registry. The Facts The land at the centre of the fight, known as "Mbana" and sitting along the Onitsha–Owerri Road in Nnewi, Anambra State, had been leased out in 1953 for a term of 99 years. Decades later, the lessee's successor sued the lessor's successor, Andrew Osumuo, claiming a right to continued possession of the land, a declaration that a fresh lump-sum demand for ₦600,000 was improper, and other reliefs. Osumuo, once served, denied the claims and fired back with his own counter-claim: he wa...
Read more