COURT’S JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND ENTERTAIN ADMIRALTY MATTERS IN NIGERIA

Abstract

In the case of Chief Oloba v. Akereja1, it was held that the issue of jurisdiction is very fundamental to the competence of a court or tribunal. It is an exhibition of wisdom to have the issue of jurisdiction or competence determined before embarking on the hearing and determination of the substantive matter or action itself, for where a court, has no competence or jurisdiction to entertain a matter or claim in a suit, it is a waste of valuable time for the Court to embark on the hearing and determination of the suit, issue, matter or claim. Jurisdiction it is said is very fundamental and it is the centre pin of the entire litigation. It is the foundation upon which every litigation hinges upon; and that is why all courts in Nigeria are vested with some specific statutory jurisdiction or the other. It is observed in this work with primary and doctrinal methodology that it is settled that a court, be it a trial or an Appellate Court, has a duty to put an end to any proceedings before it. When it discovers that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain and/or determine it, otherwise, it will be a nullity, whatever the merit of the case may be. A critical examination of some of the cases through which the FHC emerged with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and entertain admiralty matters or causes, reveals that the decisions are unfettered, and are neither nebulous nor ambiguous. Today, the decisions of the FHC in civil causes and matters are no longer questionable. By and large, the expansive nature of the jurisdiction of the FHC under the 1999 Constitution as amended is a welcome development rather than being the subject matter of intense criticisms.