Preface

160
ISSUE NO. 1
(Whether or not the lower court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant
case.)
We are constrained to begin by taking up this issue not only because it is
ideal to do so but more importantly because it is a judicial requirement that where
there are two or more issues pending before a court awaiting determination, the
court is enjoined to first and foremost take up the one that picks holes in its
jurisdiction before taking any further step. This is to avert wasting court's precious
judicial time in a futile exercise. See Ofia VS. Ejem (2006) 11 NWLR (p.t 992)
652 at 663. Closely related to this is the fact that Jurisdiction is the bedrock of any
valid judicial proceedings that is why its determination does not only assume
prominence and takes precedence in adjudication but its challenge can be raised at
any stage of the proceedings. See Banna v Ocean View Resort Limited 2002-
2008 GLR VOL. 1 where it was held per Agim JCA that ”The issue of jurisdiction
can be raised at any stage of a case and once raised it must be determined before
any further step is taken.” See also I. E. C. Vs. N. A. D. D(2008)1 GLR VOL.1
250. Another striking feature of jurisdiction relevant to the present concern is that
it must be raised by the court if the parties have neglected to bring it up. This was
clearly postulated in Oloba V Akereja (1988)3 NWLR 416 where it was held per
Obaseki JSC that: ''The issue of jurisdiction...............can be raised by any of the
parties or by the court itself suo motu. When there are sufficient facts ex facie on
the record establishing want of competence or jurisdiction in the court it is the
duty of the judge or justices to raise the issue suo motu if the parties fail to draw
the court's attention to it.''