COURT’S POWER OF TRANSFER VERSUS POWER TO STRIKE OUT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION: AN EXAMINATION OF NICO OLIVER V. DANGOTE INDUSTRIES LIMITED IN SEARCH OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

The issue of a court’s jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter before it is as important as the court itself. Jurisdiction of the court is a threshold issue that can be raised at any stage of the case, even on appeal. Therefore, the all-important issue of court jurisdiction cannot be overemphasized. Over the years, courts at various levels have been battling with this issue. Any decision reached by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity that is liable to be set aside on appeal. Hence, the court guards its jurisdiction jealously, and when it discovers that it has no jurisdiction to try a case, it strikes it out. This position has generated a lot of controversy in view of certain statutory provisions that confer powers on certain courts, especially the Federal High Court, to transfer cases to the State High Court rather than striking out for lack of jurisdiction and vice versa. This work therefore examines the issue of a court’s jurisdiction as a threshold issue. It further examines the power of courts to strike out cases for want of jurisdiction and juxtaposes it with the power of courts to transfer rather than strike out with a view to determining whether the two powers are not at a crossroads. The focus of this paper is the case of NICO Oliver v. Dangote Industries Limited, and the power to transfer examined in this research is that of the Federal High Court and the State High Court. Based on its findings, the study concluded that transferring cases to the appropriate court is better than striking out for lack of jurisdiction for the proper and effective administration of justice. It also recommended an amendment to all statutes creating courts to accommodate the transfer of power rather than strike out for want of jurisdiction.