Substantive Jurisdiction

Substantive jurisdiction refers to matters over which the court can adjudicate and it is usually expressly provided by the constitution or enabling statute. Territorial or geographical jurisdiction refers to the geographical area in which matter brought before the courts for adjudication arose. Substantive jurisdiction has to do with subject matter. Territorial or geographic jurisdiction has to do with area where the matter arose. When a court lacks substantive jurisdiction, it cannot hear the matter, if it does, it will amount to a nullity. Also, in territorial jurisdiction, courts are usually not seised of matters that occur outside their territory. Thus where ingredients of an offence occur outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court asked to adjudicate over the matter, such court will not assume jurisdiction over the offence for apparent lack of jurisdiction.

Ibori v. FRN, LGC(19/12/2008) G

The law is that there is a whole world of difference between procedural jurisdiction and the substantive jurisdiction of a Court to hear a matter and a matter of procedural jurisdiction does not qualify as “a jurisdictional challenge to the competence of the Court” that can be raised at any time. Procedure for invoking the jurisdiction of Court should not be confused with the authority of the Court to decide matters which on the face of the proceedings have been presented in the formal way for its decision and which are within its jurisdiction.
It is generally accepted that matters (including facts) which define the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy are matters of substance defined by substantive law, whereas matters which are mere vehicles which assist the Court or Tribunal in going into matters before it are matters of procedure regulated by procedural rules. A plaintiff who has commenced an action which on the face of it is not incompetent is deemed to have invoked the presumed jurisdiction of the Court.
A matter that impugns the presumed competence of the action should be raised by the opponent – Gafari Vs Johnson (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt 39) 66 at 71, Atolagbe Vs Awuni (1997) 9 NWLR (Pt 522) 536, Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited Vs Lagos State Environment Protection Agency (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 1. Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Vs Idi Zaria (2014) LPELR 22362(CA). It is matters of substantive jurisdiction that can be raised at any time and which if resolved against a party renders the entire proceedings a nullity, not matters of procedural jurisdiction – Odu’a Investment Co.
Ltd Vs Talabi (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt 523 1, Ndayako Vs Dantoro (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt 889) 187, Nagogo Vs Congress for Progressive Change (2013) 2 NWLR (Pt 1339) 448, Udo Vs The Registered Trustees of the Brotherhood of the Cross & Star (2013) 14 NWLR (Pt 1375) 488.
A matter of procedural jurisdiction must be raised by a party before taking steps in the proceedings and where it is not so raised, it is deemed waived and cannot be raised again by the party unless there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice caused thereby –F & F Farms (Nig) Ltd Vs Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt 1155) 387, Attorney General, Kwara State Vs Adeyemo (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt 1546) 210, Akahall & Sons Ltd Vs Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt 1564) 194, Belgore Vs Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2021) 3 NWLR (Pt 1764) 503, Bakari Vs Ogundipe (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt 1768) 1.
PER ABIRU, J.C.A.