By Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq.

There have been occasions where lawyers/counsel and or litigants get confused as to what to do in a particular case where the Rules of Court or law does not provide for a particular act or what to do in such an instance? More so, as the interest of justice in the case is concerned and would serve in that circumstance.

This paper is of the firm respectful submission that in any circumstance that the Rules of Court does not provide for any act or step that a lawyer intends to do or anything to be done whatsoever (and or to complement the provisions of those Rules of Court), the lawyer can utilize and or invoke the inherent powers of the court to achieve justice in a relevant case at the appropriate time (though, in my humble view, ‘inherent powers’ of the court is not the same as ‘jurisdiction’ of the court as the jurisdiction of the court is a prerequisite to the utilization of any inherent power of court. See the case of Ugba & Anor v Suswam & Ors (2014) LPELR-22882 (SC), where the Supreme Court of Nigeria held as follows: Apart from its powers derived from the Constitution which remain extant and unimpaired, the Supreme Court is also imbued with inherent powers as explained in Connelly v D.P.P. (1964) A. C. at P. 1301 where Lord Morris said ‘There can be no doubt that a Court which is endowed with a particular jurisdiction has powers which are necessary to enable it act effectively within such jurisdiction . I would regard them as powers which are inherent in its jurisdiction. A Court must enjoy such powers in order to enforce its rules of practice and to suppress any abuse of its process and to defeat any attempted thwarting of its process’.). Therefore, in my humble submission, as inherent powers of court equip the court of law, the same also equip a lawyer in the discharge of his professional roles in deserving cases, especially in the case of justice. Therefore, in such instance, ‘leave of the court’ can be sought to do and or carryout such act relying on the inherent powers of the court and where the court is convinced that it has such inherent power(s) and that judicially and judiciously, such inherent powers can be used in such instance and or circumstance established by the counsel or the litigant in question, the Court would have to decide whether such its inherent powers should be used in the circumstance.

On the nature and meanings of inherent powers of Courts, the Nigerian Courts have decided in a plethora of judicial precedents some of which would be seen as follows. For instance: In the case of COVALENT OIL & GAS SERVICES LTD & ANOR v. ECOBANK (NIG) PLC & ANOR. (2021)LCN/15135(CA), the Court of Appeal of Nigeria defined the meaning of ‘inherent power of court’ thus ‘Now, inherent powers of the Court are those innate powers invoked by the Court to ensure the smooth running of the machinery of justice in order to curtail abuse, and stamp its authority where necessary. They have constitutional backing in Section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. They are what one may call second nature powers. See: Arubo v Aiyeleru & and 5 others supra’. Also in the case of Ogwuegbu v Agomuo & Ors (1999) LPELR- 6686 (CA), on inherent powers of Court, the court held as follows ‘Now, the inherent power of the Court is that power which adheres to the Court just because it is a Court. And if I may diverge to Latin, the word ‘inherent’ (adjective used to qualify the noun- ‘power’) derives from Latin ‘inhaereo’ (verb) ‘inharere- inhaesum’ meaning, ‘to stick in’, ‘cling to’, or, ‘cleaves to’ a Court by the very reason only of its being such a Court. ‘inherent power’ of the Court needs not be legislated upon. No. Where, however, there be a legislation dealing with such ‘inherent power’, it is no longer, in my view, an ‘inherent power’. Why? Because it thenceforth, becomes a statutory power’ or, ‘constitutional power’ as the case may be. But in that case too, in my view, the ‘statutory power’ does not detract, or derogate from or, abridge the ‘inherent power of that Court. Why? Again, because it is inherent. In exercising any such power, the Court exercises a ‘statutory power’ or, ‘Constitutional power’ only’. Also, in the case of Adigun & Ors v AG Oyo State & Ors (NO. 2) (1987)- LPELR- 40648 (SC), held on the meaning and nature of the inherent powers of courts of law thus ‘In view of the above, it becomes an issue of vital importance to probe the meaning and nature of the inherent powers of Courts of law. Simply put, the inherent power of any Court is that power which is itself essential to the very existence of the Court as an institution and to its ability to function as such institution charged with the dispensation of justice, such as the power to punish for contempt, the power to grant an adjournment in the interest of justice, etc. An inherent power has to be inherent in the sense that it forms an essential and intrinsic element in the whole process of adjudication. It is innate in a Court, and is not a subject of specific grant by the Constitution or by legislation. That is why inherent powers of the Courts cannot be taken away or abridged by legislation for he who gave, he only can take away. This explains Section 6(6)(a) of the 1979 Constitution which merely recognized and stated the obvious- that the inherent powers of a Court of law exists ‘notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, for such powers were not granted by the Constitution. As soon as any Court is established, all its inherent powers adhere to it. Inherent powers of the Court are therefore those powers that are reasonably necessary for the administration of justice in the Court’. The Supreme Court also held in the case of Christlieb PLC & Ors v Majekodunmi & Ors (2008) LPELR- 8453 (CA) thus ‘The powers of the Court under its inherent Jurisdiction are complimentary to its powers under the rules of the Court. The inherent Jurisdiction of the Court is a most valuable adjunct to the powers conferred on the Court by the rules. See: Yonwuren v Modern Signs (Nig.) Ltd. (1985) CLR 2 (a) SC.’.

Finally, therefore, it is my humble submission that the ‘inherent powers’ of Courts remains a very great tool for lawyers and or litigants to use to achieve a number of things and or acts not covered by the Rules of Court and or to complement the provisions of those Rules of Court and for the purpose of ‘justice’ in the matter/case/suit. I further humbly submit that those ‘inherent powers’ of the Court are those powers that grant a high status to the Court of law and in another word, the ‘Judiciary’ and those inherent powers give great and limitless judicial powers to the Court of law.