The plaintiff/respondent sued the defendant/appellant in the Magistrates Court, Ikeja which at the time was then in the Western Region of Nigeria, claiming damages in respect of a motor collision in Lagos, a place then in the Federal Territory of Lagos.

The trial Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff/respondent. The defendant/appellant appealed to the High Court, Lagos, on the ground that there was no jurisdiction in the court of the then Western State to entertain a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the courts in the Federal Territory of Lagos.

The trial Magistrate held on this particular point that:-

"It is, my view that this Court has jurisdiction to try, this case. Although the Magistrates' Courts Civil Procedure Rules 1959 makes no provision for venue, the general principle followed in similar cases is that an action in tort as is in this case can be brought in the district where the cause of action arose or in that where the defendant ordinarily resides. Similar provision is to be found in the Magistrates' Courts (Lagos) Civil Procedure Rules Order II, rule 1(1)(a)."

HELD:

(1)     The jurisdiction of Magistrates in the Western Region, subject to the provisions as to the type of action and/or the monetary value of such action which Magistrates may entertain, is territorial.

(2)     There can be no doubt at all on a proper consideration of all the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Law, Western Region, that there was no jurisdiction in the Magistrates' Court to entertain a matter not within its district and not even within the Western State.

Appeal allowed: Judgment of lower Court set aside:

Judgment striking out cause of action for lack of jurisdiction substituted.

Laws referred to:

Magistrates' Courts (Lagos) Civil Procedure Rules Order II, rule 1

Customary Courts Law, Western Region, Section 60(1)(a)

APPEAL from Magistrates' Court.

Fowler (Mrs), for the Defendant/Appellant.

Oluwole, for the Plaintiff/Respondent.

Taylor, C.J.:-The plaintiff now respondent sued the defendant now appellant in the court at Ikeja which at the time of the judgment was then in the Western Region of Nigeria, claiming damages in respect of a motor collision which took place at Campbell/Ajele Street, a place then in the Federal territory of Lagos. The plaintiff claimed the sum of £80 as damages in respect of the loss suffered by him as a result of the defendant's negligence.

The learned Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff and awarded the sum of £58 as damages suffered by the latter.

The collision took place on the 17th day of February, 1967, but the writ was not issued till the 26th May, 1967. At the time the accident took place and the writ issued Decree No. 14 creating new States had not yet come into force. It came into force on the 27th May, 1967.

It was argued on appeal by learned Counsel for the appellant, Mrs L. Fowler, as indeed, it was so argued in the court below that there was no jurisdiction in the court of the then Western State to entertain a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the courts in the Federal Territory of Lagos.

The learned Magistrate held in his judgment, on this particular point, that:-

"It is, my view that this Court has jurisdiction to try, this case. Although the Magistrates' Courts Civil Procedure Rules 1959 makes no provision for venue, the general principle followed in similar cases is that an action in tort as is in this case can be brought in the district where the cause of action arose or in that where the defendant ordinarily resides. Similar provision is to be found in the Magistrates' Courts (Lagos) Civil Procedure Rules Order II, rule 1(1)(a)."

It is perfectly correct that the Magistrates' Courts Civil procedure Rules Order II, rule 1(1)(a) makes provision for a case to be tried in Lagos if the defendant resides in Lagos, but these are rules made as the preamble states:-

"In exercise of the powers conferred by section 77 of the Magistrates' Court (Lagos) Ordinance the following Rules of Court are hereby made by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Lagos with the approval of the Governor-General."

The equivalent provision in the Magistrates' Courts Law Western State is Section 60 and a comparison of same i Cap: 74 Vol. 4 of the Laws of the Western Region of Nigeria with rule 77 of Part VIII of the Magistrates' Courts of Lagos Ordinance Cap. 113 shows the wider aspect of the latter. Regardless, however of that the point is that section 60 does empower the Chief Justice Western Region to make rules of Court in the same way as rule 77 empowers his counterpart in Lagos. Unless, therefore, there is a provision in those rules similar to Order II, rule 1(1)(a) the fact that such provision exists in Lagos is no guide to whether a similar provision does or should exist in the Western Region or not.

My attention was drawn to the Magistrates' Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 1958 of the Western Region. Before referring to any particular rule perhaps attention should first be focused on the Magistrates' Courts Law section 60(1)(a) of the Western Region which reads thus:-

"The Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor in Council may make rules of Court for all or any of the following purposes:-

(a)     for regulating the practice and procedure of Magistrates' Courts in matters not specifically provided for in this or any other law or ordinance..."

Then again we have in Part III section 8 of the same Law under the heading "Territorial Jurisdiction of Magistrates" the following provision:-

"Every magistrate shall have jurisdiction throughout the Region but may be assigned to any specified district or transferred from one district to another by the Chief Justice."

Sections 3 to 6 of the same Law are also pertinent in this respect. In section three the Region is divided into Districts and in section 4 it is provided that:-

"A Magistrate's civil and criminal jurisdiction shall extend over any territorial waters adjacent to the district in which for the time being he is exercising jurisdiction as well as over inland waters whether within or adjacent to such district."

The fact of territorial limits of the jurisdiction of Magistrates is later enhanced by section 8 to which I have already made reference. Finally in section 6(1)(b) it is provided that:-

"Subject to the special provisions hereinafter contained in this Law:-

(a)

(b)     no magistrate either as presiding officer or otherwise shall exercise any jurisdiction and powers in excess of those conferred upon him by his appointment."

The only inference that can be drawn from the aforesaid Law when read as a whole is that the jurisdiction of Magistrates in that Region, subject to the provisions as to the type of action and or the monetary value of such action which Magistrates may entertain, is territorial.

In the Magistrates' Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1968, I can find no provision similar to that contained in Order II, rule 1(1)(a) of the counterpart in Lagos. It would seem to me that the provision in rule 5(1) further emphasises not only the importance of territorial jurisdiction considered from the larger aspect of the State but also from the smaller aspect of the "district" of each magistrate. It provides that:-

"No summons for service on a defendant out of the district of the court issuing the summons shall issue without the leave of that Court."

Then again it is important to bear in mind that Order 3, rule 3 of the same Rules provide in the case of a plaintiff that:-

"Where a plaintiff taking out a summons, either alone or jointly with any other person, is ordinarily resident out of the particular jurisdiction of the court, or only temporarily therein, he shall inform the court of an address within the district of the court where notices and other papers issuing from the court may be served upon him."

In the present suit the plaintiff's address for service is put c/o his Solicitor, Western House, 7th Floor 8/10 Broad Street, Lagos, and in his evidence he is said to live at 12 Cow Lane, Lagos, and to be employed as a Senior Education Officer, Federal Ministry of Education, Lagos. There is no address given within the Western Region let alone any district in the Region.

Perhaps I should in reinforcing this argument, if such is required, make further reference to Cap. 74, The Magistrates' Courts Law Western Region with particular reference to section 27(1) where it is provided that:-

"No act done by or under the authority of a magistrate shall be void or impeachable by reason that such act was done, or that any act, offence, or matter in respect of or in relation to which such act was done, occurred or was situated beyond the limits of the district of the jurisdiction of such Court."

The emphasis there is on 'district'.

There can be no doubt at all on a proper consideration of all these provisions that there was no jurisdiction in that Court to entertain a matter not within its district and not even within the Western State.

For these reasons this appeal must be allowed and the judgment of the court below set aside and in its place a judgment striking out the cause of action for lack of jurisdiction at the material time is substituted.

I ought perhaps to mention that though Decree No. 14 came into force the day after the summons was filed section 2(1) of that Decree provides that Magistrates' Courts, etc., shall continue to exercise their functions in their original state in these words:-

"Subject to section 3 of this Decree and without prejudice to the provisions of this Decree relating to existing law, every local authority, court and other body which immediately before the commencement of this Decree exercised its functions wholly within a state as herein constituted shall continue to exercise those functions in the State."