16/06/2026
CASE OF THE WEEK: LAW IN PRACTICE
CAN A COURT TRANSFER A CASE IT HAS NO POWER TO HEAR?
NIMASA v. IHENACHO & ORS
(2026) LPELR-83733(SC)
BRIEF FACTS
The 1st and 2nd Respondents (Hon. Captain Emmanuel Ihenacho and Integrated Oil and Gas Limited) instituted an action at the High Court of Lagos State against the Appellant (NIMASA) and four other individuals. They sought damages totalling ₦90,349,000,000.00, interest at 25% per annum from 14 September 2012 until liquidation, an order compelling the publication of a retraction and apology on designated media platforms, and other reliefs including costs.
NIMASA filed a preliminary objection contending that the Lagos State High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that the suit was an abuse of court process due to a related pending action before the Federal High Court; that the action was statute-barred; and that necessary parties against whom allegations were made had not been joined in the proceedings.
The trial court dismissed the preliminary objection. On the grounds of jurisdiction and abuse of process, it held against NIMASA. On the statute of limitation and non-joinder grounds, it deferred those issues to the Case Management Conference stage, holding that they were better suited for examination at that point.
NIMASA appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court’s decision, holding that the Lagos State High Court indeed lacked jurisdiction. However, rather than striking out the suit, the Court of Appeal proceeded to order that it be transferred to the Federal High Court for accelerated hearing and determination, purportedly exercising its powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act and Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act.
Dissatisfied with the order of transfer rather than an order striking out the suit, NIMASA appealed to the Supreme Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, basing its decision on the following legal findings:
Proper Order for Lack of Jurisdiction: The general principle of law is that where a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter, the only appropriate and proper order to make is to strike it out. A court that lacks jurisdiction does not transfer and cannot transfer.
Unconstitutionality of Section 22(3): Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act, which purports to prescribe what a State High Court should do when it considers that a matter ought to have been initiated in the Federal High Court, is unconstitutional and a nullity. It was declared void by the full Supreme Court in Fasakin Foods (Nig.) Ltd. v. Martins Babatunde Shosanya (2006) 10 NWLR (Pt. 987) 126 and that position was affirmed in this case.
Legislative Competence: The National Assembly has no power to legislate on the practice and procedure of a State High Court. That authority is vested solely in the State House of Assembly under the Constitution. At the time the relevant constitutional provisions came into force, Lagos State had its own High Court Law and Civil Procedure Rules, which made no provision for the transfer of matters to the Federal High Court.
Distinction in Transfer Powers: By virtue of Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act, the Federal High Court has the competence to transfer a cause or matter to a State High Court or the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. That power is one-directional. There is no reciprocal constitutional provision or valid State law enabling a State High Court to transfer matters upward to the Federal High Court.
Limits of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act: The Court of Appeal cannot invoke its general powers under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to make an order that the trial court itself was constitutionally barred from making. The Court of Appeal’s powers on appeal cannot exceed the powers of the court from which the appeal originates.
Authority of Precedents: Cases are only authorities for what they actually decided in the context of their prevailing facts. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in addressing the reliance placed on earlier decisions by the respondents.
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE
Upholding Constitutional Supremacy: The case reaffirms that any statute, including a Federal Act, that infringes upon the constitutional division of legislative powers between the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly must be declared void and of no effect.
Procedural Jurisdictional Clarity: It clarifies that procedural jurisdiction — meaning the power of a court to make specific orders such as an order of transfer — is just as critical as substantive jurisdiction. A court must have both before it can act.
Protection of State Judicial Autonomy: The decision protects the independence of the State Judiciary by affirming that the National Assembly cannot dictate the internal practice and procedure of State High Courts through Federal legislation.
One-Way Transfer Rule Confirmed: The ruling firmly establishes that the transfer power under the Federal High Court Act flows in only one direction — from the Federal High Court downward to a State High Court — and not the reverse.
KEY PRINCIPLE
When a State High Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a matter, the only lawful order it can make is to strike out the suit. It cannot transfer the suit to the Federal High Court. Section 22(3) of the Federal High Court Act, which purported to authorise such a transfer, has been declared unconstitutional and is a nullity. The Court of Appeal equally cannot use its appellate powers to do what the State High Court itself was constitutionally barred from doing. The correct order, always, is a strike out — not a transfer.
