By Rabiu Muhammad Gama and Ibrahim Muhammad Usman

INTRODUCTION

Jurisdiction has been described as the legal authority or the extent of the powers given to a court by the Constitution or an enabling law establishing it. It is also viewed as the authority of a court to exercise judicial powers, which is the totality of powers a court exercises when it assumes jurisdiction and hears a case. In the case of Arjay Ltd v. AIMS Ltd the court held that “Jurisdiction of a court is a matter of law and it is vested in a court by the Constitution and the statute establishing the court.”

It is worthy of note that for a court to sit and entertain a matter brought before it, it must ensure that such matter is within its powers. In an effort to ensure that courts act and operate within their powers, Superior Courts are conferred with additional jurisdiction, known as “Supervisory Jurisdiction,” which empowers the Superior Courts to, among other things, oversee the exercise of jurisdiction of the Inferior Courts. This article aims to explain the supervisory powers of the High Court.

1.0 SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION

The Federal and State High Courts, in pursuance of their inherent powers and the provision of their respective High Court Laws, can exercise supervisory jurisdiction and control over Inferior Courts and tribunals within their areas of jurisdiction by the use of some special “tools” known, and referred to, as “prerogative orders,” such as: Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus. The State High Court is empowered to exercise this supervisory jurisdiction by virtue of Section 272 (2) of the Constitution, which provides thus:

“The reference to civil or criminal proceedings in this Section

includes a reference to the proceedings which originate in the

High Court of a State and those which brought before the High

Court to be dealt with by the Court in the exercise of its

appellate or SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION (emphasis, ours).”

In the same vein, in the case of Okeahialam v. Nwamara, the court held, inter alia, that the High Court of a State has inherent jurisdiction to control Inferior Courts in a supervisory capacity. By virtue of section 7 (9) of the Federal High Court Act, 2004, the Federal High Court, being a Superior Court of Records, may exercise supervisory jurisdiction by way of a judicial review over Inferior Courts or tribunals in relation to acts and omissions of persons, bodies and institutions on subjects within the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.

This supervisory responsibility is shared by all the Superior Courts, though exercisable in the first instance in the High Court being the one with original jurisdiction. It should, however, be noted that such powers do not extend beyond Inferior Courts and tribunals. A High Court does not have the powers to sit in a supervisory capacity over the decision of a court of superior or co-ordinate jurisdiction. It is aptly submitted that the control over Inferior Courts extends not only to seeing that these courts keep within their jurisdiction but also to seeing that they observe the law.

1.1 CERTIORARI

The term Certiorari is a Latin word which literally means “Certify the records”, or “to make certain”. Technically, it is an order from a High Court to an Inferior Court or a person exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions to remove its record to the High Court in order to enable the High Court to review them and consider the legality or otherwise of the decision therein. Its main function is to ensure that inferior courts or any body entrusted with the performance of judicial or quasi-judicial functions keep within the limits of the jurisdiction conferred upon them by the statutes which create them. The case of Awe v. General Manager, Osun State Water Corporation is authoritative here

1.2 PROHIBITION

Prohibition is an order from a High Court to an inferior court or a person exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions to stop the exercise or further exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial function where the authority concerned acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or in disregard or violation of the rules of natural justice. See: Williams v. Dawodu.

2.0 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION

It’s quite clear that Certiorari and Prohibition do of course share some common features. But where an order of certiorari serves to quash a decision where one has been given, and it is useless where none has been given, Prohibition is only potent and available where there is something left to be done by the authority concerned. It will, therefore, be of no use where the judicial or quasi judicial inquiry has been concluded and there is nothing left to be done.

Both orders apply against legal authorities in their exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial and merely administrative function. This is because an administrative function does not, broadly speaking, entail the observance of the Rules of Natural Justice. The criterion for determining whether an act is ministerial or administrative is not on the person taking the action but rather on the nature and content of an action taken. The mere fact that an administrative agency is responsible for an action does not make the action ministerial. If, as a matter of law and fact, the action is judicial or quasi-judicial, then any of these orders, i.e., Certiorari or Prohibition, can be maintained on one or more of the following:

Lack of Jurisdiction either because the tribunal is incompetent, improperly constituted or the proceedings are improperly instituted, see the case of Gabriel Madukolu & ORS v. Johnson Nkemdilim. Denial or breach of any of the cardinal rules of natural justice. Error of law on the face of the record including the documents initiating the proceedings, the pleadings, if any, but not always the evidence or reasons unless they are incorporated by the tribunal. Fraud or collusion where they can be shown to have influenced the tribunal in its decisions. 3.0 MANDAMUS

An order of Mandamus lies from a Superior Court to compel any person or body vested with a public duty to carry out the duty, failure of which he may be held in contempt. The order has been described as “a comprehensive remedy designed for the purpose of securing the performance of public duties by persons who have duty to perform them on the request of a person, or persons having the requisite locus standi or legal right in the performance of such public duties.” As a residual remedy, it is resorted to where there are no alternative legal remedies. The conditions for the grant of an order of Mandamus includes, though not limited to, the following:

The person to be compelled must have the power to perform the act in question; There must be a public duty imposed by statute to perform the act; The person to be compelled must not have discretion in the performance of the duty, it must be compulsory. In determining whether to issue the order, the court would consider the nature of the public duty sought to be performed to know if it is of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial nature. Where it is judicial or quasi-judicial, the order may be issued only in the event of a complete refusal to perform the duty and not when it has been performed one way in preference to another. This implies that the person or authority has some discretion in the exercise of his judgment although it is imperative that he acts. The rule is that mandamus would not compel a man to act in any particular way if the statute providing for the performance of such duty leaves discretion as to the mode of performance. However, where the duty to be enforced is ministerial in nature, the order will only issue to compel the doing of the specific act in the manner that the court considers lawful, see Banjo & Ors v. Abeokuta Urban District Council

Apart from the general supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts, there is a provision in Section 295(1) of the Constitution that provides for the reference of any question as to the interpretation or application of the Constitution to the Superior Courts. However, looking at the limited space available to us here, that should be a topic for another day.

CONCLUSION

Courts, as temples of justice, are presided over by judges, and these judges are humans, like you and us, capable of erring. In an effort to curtail and limit the possible excesses of these human judges, the framers of our laws laid down these laws and principles which empower the “higher courts” on the judicial ladder to oversee the activities of the “lower courts” on the said ladder with a view to ensuring that the latter courts keep and operate within the four walls of their given jurisdiction. This power that is given to the “higher courts” is known as “Supervisory Powers.”

Supervisory powers, as discussed and explained above, is exercised by the Courts through the use of prerogative orders, namely Mandamus, Certiorari and Prohibition. Certiorari is granted by the court to request the records of an Inferior Court in order to ascertain the appropriateness or otherwise of a decision or findings of the lower court through the instrument of judicial review. The writ or order of Prohibition is issued to lower courts or tribunals to stop its proceedings when it (the inferior court) is exercising its jurisdiction beyond its powers or in defiance of the Rules of Natural Justice.

Rabiu Muhammad Gama and Ibrahim Muhammad Usman are level 300 Law students from Bayero University, Kano. They could be reached on rabiuminuwa327@gmail.com, imuhammadusman66@gmail.com, or on 09061912994, 08145101965

REFERENCES

Abiola Sanni (2006) Introduction to Nigerian Legal System. Obafemi Awolowo University Press ltd.

Akpederin Ehensiri ,(2012) General Principle of Nigerian Law. Simpliciter Publication: Lagos.

Ese Malemi (2005) The Nigerian Legal System. Princeton Publishing Company: Lagos.

Obilade (1979) The Nigerian Legal System. Spectrum Books Limited.

J.O Asein (1998) Introduction to Nigerian Legal System. Ababa Press ltd.