Jurisprudence of Jurisdiction: Effect of Agreements Concerning Jurisdiction

Abstract

The term jurisdiction denotes the constitutional or statutory power and authority donated to a court or other judicial tribunal by which it is authorised to take cognisance of and decide issues presented to it in a formal manner for resolution. Jurisdiction in its plenitude requires concurrence of subject-matter jurisdiction with personal jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court is only such as is vested by a constitution or statute, and the consent or error of parties is incompetent to vest subject matter jurisdiction where none exists. From the perspective of the current continual wrongful assumption of jurisdiction by Nigerian courts, this paper presented an in-depth analysis of the jurisprudence of jurisdiction as regards the effect of agreements concerning jurisdiction. Having defined and explained the connotations of jurisdiction as a term, the paper explained that court having jurisdiction rightly bestowed, has a right to decide all issues that arise in an adjudication. In this regard, a presumption of regularity attaches to its decision, and whether its decisions are correct or not, its judgment unless reversed, binds all other tribunals. The paper then explained the rule that requires a court seised of jurisdiction as possessing not only the right and power or authority, but also the duty to exercise that jurisdiction. The paper then brought out the qualifications to this rule, and highlighted the circumstances where a court, though possessing jurisdiction, may due to considerations of public policy, decline to exercise the jurisdiction. In analysing and distinguishing subject-matter jurisdiction from jurisdiction over parties, the paper established that parties by their conduct, consent, estoppel or laches are unable to vest or confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court; however, personal jurisdiction over the parties or any of them may arise from voluntary submission, by agreement or by consent. This led to inquiry into the effect of agreements purporting to exclude adjudication by the courts. The paper found that the general rule is that no person, whether by contract or otherwise, may divest the court of the jurisdiction which the legislature vested on it. This rule connotes that parties cannot by contract oust the courts of their jurisdiction, but may postpone a right of action till a third person had decided on the difference between the parties to the contract. On the effect of agreements conferring exclusive jurisdiction on certain courts, the paper found that though as a general principle, parties may not confer jurisdiction on a court where statute has not conferred any, but then, if there is a foreign jurisdiction clause in a contract, then prima facie, the Nigerian courts will give effect to the foreign jurisdiction clause by staying proceedings instituted in Nigeria in breach of the foreign jurisdiction clause. The paper then concluded.