Understanding the Boundaries of Inherent Jurisdiction in Nigerian Courts
In legal practice, the term “inherent jurisdiction” is frequently used. It is often presented as a court’s seemingly limitless power to adjudicate matters and address justice. However, several critical questions arise: Is this jurisdiction without bounds?
Can it override express statutory provisions? Does it serve as an alternative to the right to appeal, or do constitutional mandates constrain it?
Inherent jurisdiction refers to the innate authority of courts to ensure that justice is served without abuse of the legal process. While courts possess these powers, they are not a limitless, shapeless force that can be invoked at will.
Instead, they complement powers explicitly provided by law and cannot supplant statutory provisions. Courts rely on these powers to address fraud or lack of jurisdiction but cannot exercise them contrary to express constitutional or legislative requirements.
Furthermore, whether non-parties to a case can invoke inherent jurisdiction to set aside a judgment raises concerns. The Nigerian Constitution provides avenues for appealing decisions, but non-parties generally require leave. Courts may set aside judgments in specific cases, but this is typically limited to those directly involved.
In summary, while courts have inherent powers, their use is restricted and carefully defined. These powers do not grant unrestricted authority, especially when constitutional rights, such as the right to appeal, are involved. Ultimately, the inherent jurisdiction must be exercised within the confines of the law to preserve the judicial system’s integrity.
