If an information or charge is to be filed, the jurisdiction of the court must be determined.

What does it mean for a court to have jurisdiction?

Power of the court to hear and determine a matter. There are various types of jurisdiction:

  • Original or appellate
  • Concurrent and exclusive
  • Co ordinate and supervisory: supervisory is the power of judicial review.
  • Limited and unlimited:
  • Substantive or subject matter and
  • Territorial: A court may have substantive jurisdiction without having territorial jurisdiction. Example robbery at Imo state cannot be tried in the Enugu state High Court albeit it has substantive jurisdiction of robbery.
  • Difference between procedural and substantive jurisdiction: substantive jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear that particular subject matter while Procedural jurisdiction is the process by which the complainant institutes or initiates the subject matter before the court. A defect in the procedure of commencement can be waived or amended but a Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived as the court ought to strike off such matter. Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court
  • General and special.

Criminal trials are territorial. Why? It is because courts are only seised with criminal matters that was committed in that state. Secondly, Offences in a state are created by laws of the House of Assembly of the state. Thus, a state cannot legislate or make laws for another state.

Assuming an offence is committed across states, which court will have jurisdiction? Any of the courts where the series of offence was committed. Look at the case study in your class note.

Thus, a crime may be partially, substantially or conclusively committed in one state. In such case, only that state will have jurisdiction to hear such criminal matter- section 12A(1) CC An element or some elements of the crime may be committed in different jurisdictions,

As a general principle, where a crime is committed in an area and all the ingredients and elements of the offence was committed in the area, only the state of the area will have jurisdiction- Section 12A(1)

  • Section 12A(2)(a)- where several elements of the crime are committed in different states, or several offences are committed in different states, those states all have jurisdiction. Patrick Njovens &ors v state
  • By virtue of section 12A(2)(b) CC where all persons who committed an act or makes an omission come into another state thereafter, where no element of the offence occurs,(eg in our Scenario the offenders relocate to Enugu) upon the authority of Section 12A2(b) the state where the offenders relocated to will have jurisdiction to try the matter as the offence will be deemed to have occurred in the state.

Where an OFFENCE is only constituted under the Penal Code, it cannot be instituted in the South upon the authority of Aoko v Fagbemi, Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constituted. The court in the south will not have substantive jurisdiction.

The principle that offences are territorial has its application to the Federal High Court albeit there is only one federal High court with judicial divisions by virtue of section 19 of the FHC Act, ABIOLA V FRN. However, where an offence with all its elements was committed in a particular judicial division, then that judicial division will be seised of such matter. Except the chief judge makes an order that the matter be heard in another judicial division. Section 45 FHC Act. IBORI V FRN.

However, where offences have initial and subsequent elements in different states..the matter can be instituted in any of the states.

Jurisdiction as it relates to criminal litigation is the power of a court to entertain a criminal matter. There is a difference between criminal jurisdiction of court and criminal liability of an accused person. Criminal liability has to do with culpability of an accused person. When there is no criminal jurisdiction, the question of criminal liability will not arise. There is a difference between substantive and territorial jurisdiction.

In Ibori v. FRN, the Court of Appeal distinguished it as follows: 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. See R v. SHODIPO. However, where the offence is partly committed in one state and partly committed in another, both states have territorial jurisdiction to try the offender.

See OSOBA v. QUEEN; PATRICK NJOVENS v. STATE; section 12A Criminal Code; section 4(2)(b) Penal Code