Jurisprudence of Jurisdiction and the Rules Regulating Acquisition of Jurisdiction

Abstract

Jurisdiction is the livewire of any judicial proceeding. The mode of its acquisition and exercise have a vital effect of the legitimacy and validity of the resulting proceedings. This paper undertook a cohesive study of the rules regulating the acquisition of jurisdiction in judicial proceedings and the effect of lack of or wrongful acquisition of jurisdiction. The paper explained that the jurisdiction of any court is granted aliunde from without and not from within, so that the primary and basic sources of jurisdiction are comprised in the Constitution and statutes creating a tribunal. The paper then expounded that from the perspective of its exercise, before a court may act, there must be some appropriate application invoking the judicial power of the court with respect to the matter sought to be litigated, and in this regard, acquisition of subject matter jurisdiction is dependent on a party’s application for relief. Thereafter, the paper clarified that basically, judicial proceedings are initiated by due process of law, and it is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction for the parties to be served with the processes of court, so that acquisition of personal jurisdiction over a party is dependent on lawful service of process. Flowing from the foregoing, the paper distinguished judicial error from lack of jurisdiction, and found that an adjudication by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive against the entire world until set aside by a proper appellate tribunal, notwithstanding that the court may have mistaken the law or misjudged the facts, so that judicial error is remediable solely by the appellate process. flowing from that, in investigating the effect of fraudulent acquisition of jurisdiction, the paper found fraud to constitute a strong vitiating factor that affects fatally, even the most solemn judgments and decrees. The paper then interrogated the effect of complete absence of jurisdiction, and found that unlike the effect of judicial error in the exercise of jurisdiction properly acquired, a total lack or absence of jurisdiction corrodes the very basis of an adjudication, as a result of which the verdict may be challenged collaterally. The paper then concluded.