Substantive Claim

Having made this clarification; I agree, in principle, that where a party to an action has proved his substantive claim there would be no justification to embark on the consideration of his alternative claim, and that alternative claims are considered and granted where the grant of the substantive claim is either not feasible, unjust, or inequitable

Karaye v. Wike LGC(21/6/2019) F

The law makes a distinction between jurisdiction over “principal claims” and “ancillary claims”. It says that if the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the “principal claims”, then it will have no jurisdiction to entertain the “ancillary claims” – see PDP V. Sylva (2012) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1316) 85, Kakih V. PDP (2014) 15 NWLR (1430) 374, Egbuonu V. B.R.T.C. (1997) 12 NWLR (Pt. 531) 29, and Tukur V.
Govt., of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517, wherein Obaseki, JSC, explained: If there is a Court with jurisdiction to determine all the Issues raised in a matter, including the principal issue, it is improper to approach a Court that is competent to determine only some of the issues. The incompetence of the Court to entertain and determine the principal question is enough to nullify the whole proceedings and Judgment, as there is no room for half Judgment in any matter brought before the Court.
Very apt; there is no room for half Judgment in any matter brought before a Court or Tribunal, as in this case, where the principal claims are directed against SEC and CBN, Federal Government Agencies. AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.

Indeed, the law has been firmly laid down that where a Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate over the principal claims in a case, it has the duty to decline the exercise of partial jurisdiction over subsidiary claims and transfer the case to the appropriate and proper Court with full jurisdiction over the principal claims. See Odunsi v. Ojora (1961) All NLR, 283, Nwafia v. Ububa (1966) NWLR 219, Tukur v. Govt. MOHAMMED LAWAL GARBA, J.S.C.: