By Achor Omodu 

The issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time of the proceedings including on appeal.
The issue of jurisdiction once raised must be determined first. The law is trite that jurisdiction is a threshold issue and that once an objection is based on the issue of jurisdiction, it must be resolved first before further steps are and can be taken in the proceedings.
In Drexel Energy and Natural Resources Ltd. v Trans International Bank Ltd, the Supreme Court made an instructive pronouncement  that:
“Once the issue of jurisdiction is raised in any court the determination of that issue cannot and should not and ought not be deferred until the conclusion of the substantive suit.”

In the case of  Petrojessica Enterprises Ltd v. Leventis Technical co ltd (1992) 5 NWLR (pt.244) 675 at 693, it was held that jurisdiction is the very basis on which any tribunal tries a case. It is the lifeline of all trials. A trial without jurisdiction is a NULLITY. This importance of jurisdiction is the reason why it can be raised at any stage of a case be it at trial.

In FRIN v Gold, the Supreme Court, held thus:
“Jurisdiction of court is very fundamental and lack of jurisdiction robs a court of the competence to hear and decide a matter. In other words, once a court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a matter, its adjudication of the matter will be declared a NULLITY by an appellate court.”

Therefore, where preliminary objection touches upon the competence of the action or on the jurisdiction of the court to entertain same, it would be reckless for any court to proceed with a suit which is deficient in that respect, as any proceedings or decision taken without jurisdiction, no matter how brilliantly conducted, would amount to NULLITY. The law is trite that you cannot place something on nothing and expect it to stand.
To that extent, I want to state that the judgement delivered today by Justice Chinwendu Nworgu is a NULLITY.

Achor Omodu writes from Port Harcourt.