The standard objective of judicial immunity has been significantly challenged in courts. Despite the efforts of the court to answer on different occasions on the subject, it’s quite unfortunate that the aggrieved constantly fail to appreciate the rationality of the court which is to their advantage.
It is against this framework, that this article attempts to resuscitate the spirit of judicial blessings on judicial immunity and categorically highlights on the condition that might limits judicial immunity when not effectively exercised.
Per Niki Tobi JCA (as he then was) highlighted in his sagacity concisely below;
“In the common law tradition, I refuse to think that the founders of the doctrine of judicial immunity really had in mind as their primary reason, the protection of the Judge qua adjudicator. Rather they had in mind the creation of a forum where the Judge can enjoy maximum independence in the performance of his judicial duties. I think all of us in the Judiciary should realize that original concept which is still the law”.
Legal doyens concur that defending judges from the repercussions of decisions they made in good faith and in accordance with recognized judicial integrity principles is necessary, but they also agree that such immunities needed to be better defined and conveyed to the public.
Jurists of different periods and in varying climes had reasoned on the concept of judicial immunity. While some contended that judicial immunity has never been an absolute phenomenal, others argued in opposition.
However, this has become a bedrock and subject of debate in international forum where jurist categorically analyzed the abundance of statutes and authorities on the subject matter. Nevertheless, an enduring solution has not been proffered on the subject.
This article is to contribute to the eruditeness on judicial immunity, particularly with Nigeria in perspective, numerous judicial authorities and extant legal frame-works are thoroughly examined in substantiating the argument. Also, the effect of jurisdiction on the seemingly absoluteness of judicial immunity is treated with conclusion.
Keywords; Judiciary, Judicial-immunity, Jurisdiction, Constitution.
- Conceptualizing the Term Judicial Immunity
According to Black Law Dictionary (8th edition), immunity is any exemption from a duty, liability, or service of process, especially such an exemption granted by public officer. Judicial immunity could be treated from two viewpoints which are: immunity under the common law and, immunity as provided by statutes.
The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has not expressly availed the meaning of judicial immunity except for judicial power and judiciary as the third arm of government. Judicial immunity is an important common law principle that safeguards judicial independence.
As a significant protection, the courts have enthusiastically and passionately guided its application in the judicial process principally to the advantage of the judge qua adjudicator.
- Examining English Cases on Judicial Immunity
It goes without saying that, Judges enjoy absolute judicial immunity from liability for judicial acts, no matter how erroneous the act or how evil the motive, unless the act is performed in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
Irrefutably, it has long been recognized that in order to adequately facilitate the role of the judiciary in our society, judicial actors must feel free to exercise their discretion without being afraid of civil reprisal. See Stump v. Sparman, 432 U.S. 349,356-57,98 S.C. CT. 1099,55 I., ED.2D 331 (1978).
Stressing further, the rationale behind judicial immunity was appreciated and established in the celebrate English case of Scott v. Stansfield (1868) L.R. 3 ex. 200, at p.22, that while “the Judges immunity as to acts done or words spoken in their judicial capacity in a court of law is not conferred for the protection or benefit of the Judges, but basically for the assistance of the public, whose interests is the Judge’s assignment.
Therefore, the judge should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences”. See; Garnett v. Ferrnand (1827) 6 B and C 611 at 625.
However, De Smith in his book ‘Constitutional and Administrative Law, (1973)’ has expatiated this specifically at p.370:
“Judicial immunities from suit are conferred not for the benefit of judges but for the benefit of the administration of justice. The risk that a judge may abuse his privilege by making gratuitously defamatory remarks for reasons of personal rancour is considered to be less than the risk of his abstaining for reasons of prudence from condemning inequity in appropriate language.”
Furthermore, the English case of Sirros v. Moore (1974) 3 WLR 459 has stated with approval the position of the earlier court, on the nature of Judicial immunity of a judge, thus:
“The words which he speaks are protected by an absolute privilege. The orders which he gives, and the sentences which he imposes cannot be made the subject of civil proceedings against him. No matter that the Judge was under some gross error or ignorance, or was actuated by envy, hatred and malice, and all uncharitableness, he is not liable to an action.
The remedy of the party aggrieved is to appeal to a Court of Appeal or to apply for habeas corpus, or a writ of certiorari, or take some such step to reverse his ruling. Of course, if the judge has accepted bribes or been in the least degree corrupt, or has perverted the course of justice, he can be punished in the courts.
That apart, however, a judge is not liable to an action for damages. The reason is not because the judge has any privilege to make mistakes or to do wrong. It is so that he should be able to do his duty with complete independence and free from fear”.
On the strength of this case, judicial officers are subjected to reviews and discipline only where there is gross error in their conduct of administrating justice, asides that, nothing else limits their functionality.
In Bradley V. Brigham,13 WALL.335 (1872), the court also held that it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice, that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, should be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.
This explicate that judicial officers are protected plainly to exercise their official duty without fear and to the whole ends of justice, it is however much of benefit to the general populace.
- Examination of Nigeria Cases on Judicial Immunity
The decisions of the court proliferate in Nigeria on the subject and it has emulated the laid down principle of common law. In this article, a few these cases shall be examined briefly.
In Egbe v. Justice Adefarasin & Anor (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt.3) 549, the supreme court in her eruditely held inter alia;
(1) that a Judge of a superior court of record is not liable in tort for any judicial act performed by him within his jurisdiction even though he be malicious.
(2)that no action lies for acts done or words spoken by a Judge in the exercise of his judicial office, although his motive is malicious and the acts or words are not done or spoken in the honest exercise of his office;
(3) that the immunity granted at common law to the judge is based on public policy.
Undoubtedly, the brilliance in this case is a vital legacy etched in the sands of time by the apex court. It is noteworthy that in a circumstance where a judge is malicious in his judicial act or conduct, the judge would not in consequence, be liable for such.
Judges of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are adorned with a considerable level of immunity in the discharge of their duties.
This was again championed in the case of Secretary, Iwo Central Local Government v. Adio (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 667) 115 where the court restated the Latin maxim “de fide et officio judicis non recipitur quaestio, sed de scientia, sive sit error juris, sive facti,” – “the honesty and integrity of a Judge cannot be questioned, but his decision may be impugned for error, either of law or of fact”.
The wisdom behind the maxim is lucid. It echoes judicial immunity as indubitably predicated on public policy, due to the need to protect judges and judicial officers from malevolence on their capacity as Judges.
It is imperious that for a free and impartial administration of justice, the administrator must be uninfluenced by fear nor discomfited by hope.
- The Legal Consequence of Lack of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is the boundary imposed on the power of a validly constituted court to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process, by reference to the subject matter of the issues or to the persons between whom the issues are joined or to the kind of relief sought. See A.G Lagos state v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. 111)552; N. E. P. A. v. Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798) 79.
Jurisdiction is conferred by the constitution or statue, on Courts and it is a threshold issue, a heartbeat of a case till the extent that once a court lacks jurisdiction to hear a matter and it proceeds to hear a matter, no matter how well handled, the entire proceedings would be a nullity.
This explains why it could be raised at the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High court at any time. See; Dangana v. Usman (2013)6 NWLR (PT. 302)692; Barclays Bank of Nigeria v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1976)6 SC 175.
In determining whether an act was outside judge’s jurisdiction for the purpose of judicial immunity, the focus is not on whether the judge’s specific act was proper or improper, but on whether the judge had the requisite jurisdiction to perform an act of that kind in the case. See the English case of Mireles v. Waco 502 U.S. 9, 112 S. CT. 286, 289, 116 L. ED. 2D 9 (1991).
The moment a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate a matter, it behooves on the adverse party to challenge the jurisdictional capability of the court through preliminary objection.
In a circumstance where the court failed strike out, or acknowledge its wrong of lacking jurisdiction, any decision reached thereof could be appealed against, the appeal court could up-turn the earlier ruling-decision. Per Tobi, J.C.A. (As he then was) in Onagoruwa v. I.G.P. 1991] 5 NWLR 593 at page 646, (supra) paras. F-H diligently educated us on this:
“A court of law can dismiss a matter when it has been heard on its merits and not when the matter had to abate on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction, as a matter of law, and not a matter of fact, could be regularized by a plaintiff in certain instances. It is not like the facts of a case which are constant like the sun rising from the West and setting in the East every day. And so, if a suit is dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiff will have no opportunity to cure it, if it is legally possible so to do.
Let trial courts not dismiss suits on the ground that they do not have jurisdiction to entertain them. Let them merely strike out such suits. It is possible the plaintiff may like to have a second bite at the cherry if the law allows him to do so.”
Furthermore, judicial immunity and its relation to jurisdiction in determination of a case was elucidated in the case of Princess v. Governor of Ogun State & Ors (2018) LPELR-44986(CA) where it was held as follows:
“The overwhelming judicial position is that a Judge of Superior Court of record acting within jurisdiction in respect of the matter complained of, or were acting in excess of jurisdiction in respect of the matter complained of, cannot be sued for any act or order made by him so long as he believes himself to have the jurisdiction to do the act or make the order complained of.
Thus, so long as the judicial officer has the honest belief that he is acting within jurisdiction, though he may be mistaken, or even ignorant of the law, is not liable for an action arising therefrom.”
It is noteworthy that the moment there is exercise of judicial duty in line with the requisite jurisdiction of the court, there wouldn’t be any impediment to limit the judicial immunity and functions.
Just as judges are not liable for the decision made within the jurisdiction and ethics of their office, the temple of justice would not be liable when erroneous judgment is delivered, being that the court lacks juristic personality, it can neither sue nor be sued.
It is a well settled principle of law that only a juristic person can sue and be sued. This has unfettered acknowledgement in plethora of cases, See Carlen v. University of Jos  1 NWLR (PT. 323) 631.
- Statutory and Regulatory Provisions on Judicial Immunity
In Egbe v. Adefarasin (1985) 1 NWLR (PT.3) 549 (supra), the courteill examining the provision of section 88(1) of the High Court Law of Lagos State, re-emphasized that judges are immune from all civil liability whatsoever for anything done in their judicial capacity.
Section 88(1) of the High Court Law of Lagos State which provides:
“No judge shall be liable for any act done by him or ordered by him to be done in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or not within the limits of his jurisdiction, provided that he at the time, in good faith, believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order to be done the act in question.”
The 1999 Constitution (As amended in 2011) provides for a procedure for dealing with or removing Judges whose conduct has fallen below the expected standard.
By, Part 1 Section 21(g) of the Constitution the National Judicial Council has the power as reproduced below to;
(g) appoint, dismiss and exercise disciplinary control over members and staff of the council
The commands of public policy are that judicial officials be given the latitude to make flexible and discretionary calls in the performance of their official duties. Judges are undoubtedly saddled with immunity for certain acts in carrying out their assignment. Common law and statutory immunities for actions outside of the judicial realm are inclusive.
It is only when they act outside the confine of their authority and official powers with evidently and factually malevolent purpose does liability steals in through the National judicial council.
About the Author
Oladele Kehinde Emmanuel is an undergraduate student of law in Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Kaduna State Nigeria in Department Of Civil Law, Faculty of Law. He has volunteered and participated in several seminars, webinars, and debate competitions and can be reached via: E-Mail: [email protected].
Lengo la kawaida la kinga ya mahakama limepingwa sana mahakamani. Licha ya juhudi za mahakama kujibu katika hafla tofauti juu ya mada hii, ni bahati mbaya sana kwamba walioharibiwa daima kushindwa kufahamu busara ya mahakama ambayo ni kwa faida yao. Ni dhidi ya mfumo huu, kwamba makala hii inajaribu kufufua roho ya baraka za mahakama juu ya kinga ya mahakama na kwa wazi inaangazia hali ambayo inaweza kupunguza kinga ya mahakama wakati haitumiki kwa ufanisi. "Niki Tobi, mwanasheria wa sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria.""" Badala yake walikuwa na akilini kuundwa kwa jukwaa ambapo Hakimu anaweza kufurahia uhuru wa juu katika utendaji wa majukumu yake ya mahakama. Nadhani sisi sote katika Mahakama tunapaswa kutambua dhana hiyo ya awali ambayo bado ni sheria. "Wahukumu wa sheria wanakubali kwamba ""kuwalinda majaji kutokana na athari za maamuzi waliyofanya kwa imani njema na kulingana na kanuni za uadilifu wa mahakama zilizotambuliwa"" ni muhimu, lakini pia wanakubali kwamba kinga kama hizo zinahitaji kufafanuliwa vizuri na kuelekezwa kwa umma." Wanasheria wa vipindi tofauti-tofauti na katika hali ya hewa tofauti-tofauti walikuwa wamedokeza juu ya dhana ya kinga ya mahakama. Wakati baadhi ya alidai kwamba kinga ya mahakama haijawahi kuwa jambo la kawaida, wengine alidai katika upinzani. Hata hivyo, hii imekuwa msingi na mada ya mjadala katika jukwaa la kimataifa ambapo mwanasheria categorically kuchambuliwa wingi wa sheria na mamlaka juu ya suala hilo. Hata hivyo, suluhisho la kudumu halijawasilishwa kuhusu jambo hilo. Makala hii ni kuchangia eruditeness juu ya kinga ya mahakama, hasa na Nigeria katika mtazamo, mamlaka nyingi za mahakama na mifumo ya kisheria iliyopo ni kikamilifu kuchunguzwa katika substantiating hoja. Pia, athari ya mamlaka juu ya kuonekana kabisa ya kinga ya mahakama ni kushughulikiwa na hitimisho. Maneno muhimu; Mahakama, Mahakama-usalama, Mamlaka, Katiba. "Kutokana na Kamusi ya Sheria ya Black (toleo la 8) ""kushindwa ni msamaha wowote kutoka kwa wajibu, dhima, au huduma ya mchakato, haswa msamaha huo uliopewa na afisa wa umma.""" Usalama wa mahakama inaweza kutibiwa kutoka kwa maoni mawili ambayo ni: ukombozi chini ya sheria ya kawaida na, ukombozi kama inapatikana na sheria. Katiba ya Jamhuri ya Muungano wa Nigeria ya mwaka 1999 haikufafanua waziwazi maana ya kinga ya mahakama isipokuwa kwa mamlaka ya mahakama na mahakama kama mkono wa tatu wa serikali. Usalama wa mahakama ni kanuni muhimu ya sheria ya kawaida ambayo inalinda uhuru wa mahakama. Kama ulinzi muhimu, mahakama kwa shauku na shauku imeongoza matumizi yake katika mchakato wa mahakama hasa kwa faida ya hakimu qua adjudicator. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika makala ya kwanza ya kitabu cha ""Judicial Immunity,"" mahakimu wana haki ya kutowajibika kwa matendo ya mahakama, bila kujali jinsi matendo hayo yalivyo mabaya au jinsi yalivyo mabaya, isipokuwa kama matendo hayo yamefanywa kwa kutokuwa na mamlaka ya mahakama." "Hata hivyo, ni jambo la hakika kwamba kwa muda mrefu imekuwa ikitambuliwa kwamba ili kuwezesha jukumu la mahakama katika jamii yetu, watendaji wa mahakama lazima wahisi huru kutumia busara yao bila kuogopa adhabu ya kiraia. """ Stump v. Sparman, 432 U.S. 349-579, S.C. 1095, 55 I, ED 2D 331 (1978) "Kutokana na kesi ya ""Scott v. Stansfield"" (1868) ya mwaka wa 1868 ya mahakama ya Uingereza, sheria ya kizuizi cha mahakama ilitambuliwa na kuanzishwa." 3 ex. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kifungu cha 22 cha Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria ya Sheria.""" Kwa hiyo, hakimu anapaswa kuwa huru kutekeleza kazi zao kwa uhuru na bila hofu ya matokeo <unk>. Garnett v. Ferrand (1827) 6 B na C 611 katika 625. "De Smet katika kitabu chake ""Constitutional and Administrative Law"" (1973) anasema: ""Hakuna haki ya kutolewa kizuizi kwa mahakama kwa ajili ya haki ya mahakama." "Hata hivyo, mahakama ya Uingereza, ambayo ilitoa uamuzi wa kutokubaliana na sheria hiyo, ilisema: ""Hakuna mtu anayekubaliana na sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria ya sheria.""" Amri zake na hukumu zake hazitaweza kushtakiwa kwa mashtaka ya kiraia. Haijalishi kama hakimu alikuwa chini ya kosa fulani kubwa au ujinga, au alikuwa kuendeshwa na wivu, chuki na uovu, na wote uncharitable, yeye si kuwajibika kwa hatua. "Hatua ya kukata rufaa kwa mahakama ya rufaa ni kuomba ""habeas corpus"" au ""rit of certiorari"" au kuchukua hatua nyingine ya kufuta uamuzi wake." Bila shaka, kama hakimu amekubali rushwa au amekuwa na ufisadi wa kiwango kidogo, au amepotosha mwendo wa haki, anaweza kuadhibiwa mahakamani. Hata hivyo, bila kujali hilo, hakimu hawezi kushtakiwa kwa ajili ya fidia. Sababu si kwamba hakimu ana haki ya kufanya makosa au kufanya makosa. Ni ili aweze kufanya wajibu wake kwa uhuru kamili na bila hofu. Kwa nguvu ya kesi hii, maafisa wa mahakama wanakabiliwa na ukaguzi na nidhamu tu ambapo kuna kosa kubwa katika mwenendo wao wa utoaji wa haki, mbali na hilo, hakuna kitu kingine kinachopunguza utendaji wao. Katika kesi ya Bradley v. Brigham, 13 W.L. 352, mahakama hiyo pia ilisema kwamba ni kanuni ya jumla ya umuhimu mkubwa kwa usimamizi sahihi wa haki, kwamba afisa wa mahakama, katika kutumia mamlaka aliyopewa, anapaswa kuwa huru kutenda kulingana na imani yake mwenyewe, bila hofu ya matokeo ya kibinafsi kwake. Hii inaelezea kwamba maafisa wa mahakama wanalindwa waziwazi kutekeleza wajibu wao wa rasmi bila hofu na kwa madhumuni yote ya haki, hata hivyo ni faida kubwa kwa watu kwa ujumla. - Uchunguzi wa kesi za Nigeria juu ya kinga ya mahakama Maamuzi ya mahakama yanaongezeka nchini Nigeria juu ya mada hiyo na imeiga kanuni iliyowekwa ya sheria ya kawaida. Katika makala hii, baadhi ya kesi hizi zitachunguzwa kwa ufupi. Katika kesi ya Egbes v. Justice Adefarine & Anwar, 1 NWR 549, Mahakama Kuu ya Marekani ilisema kwamba hakimu wa mahakama ya juu hawezi kuwajibika kwa kosa lolote la kisheria kwa sababu ya kitendo chochote cha mahakama kilichofanywa na yeye ndani ya mamlaka yake, hata kama alikuwa na nia mbaya. (2) Hakuna hatua ya kisheria inayohusu matendo au maneno yaliyosemwa na Jaji katika utumiaji wa ofisi yake ya mahakama, ingawa nia yake ni mbaya na matendo au maneno hayafanywi au kusemwa katika utumiaji wa haki wa ofisi yake; (3) kwamba kinga iliyotolewa kwa sheria ya kawaida kwa Jaji inategemea sera ya umma. Bila shaka, ujanja katika kesi hii ni urithi muhimu uliochongwa katika mchanga wa wakati na mahakama ya juu. Ni muhimu kutambua kwamba katika hali ambapo hakimu ana uovu katika kitendo chake cha mahakama au mwenendo, hakimu hatakuwa na hatia kwa sababu hiyo. Mahakimu wa Jamhuri ya Shirikisho la Nigeria wana kiwango kikubwa cha kinga katika kutekeleza majukumu yao. Hii ilitambuliwa tena katika kesi ya Katibu, Serikali ya Mitaa ya Kati ya Iwo dhidi ya Adio (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. "Kutokana na kanuni ya ki-Latin ""de fide et officio judicis non recipitur quaestio, sed de scientia, sive sit error juris, sive facti"" (mwenye haki na uadilifu wa hakimu hauwezi kuhojiwa, lakini uamuzi wake unaweza kupingwa kwa kosa la kisheria au la kweli)." Hekima iliyo nyuma ya mithali hiyo ni iliyo wazi. "Hii inarejelea kinga ya mahakama kama ""haijulikani"" kulingana na sera ya umma, kutokana na haja ya kuwalinda majaji na maafisa wa mahakama kutoka kwa uovu juu ya uwezo wao kama majaji." Ni muhimu kwamba kwa ajili ya utoaji wa haki wa bure na usio na upendeleo, msimamizi lazima asiathiriwe na hofu wala asishangazwe na matumaini. """Uwezo wa mahakama iliyoundwa kwa halali kusikiliza na kuamua masuala kati ya watu wanaotaka kutumia utaratibu wake, kwa kumbukumbu ya mada ya masuala au kwa watu ambao masuala yameunganishwa au kwa aina ya misaada inayotafutwa." A.G. Lagos State v. Dosunmu (1989) 3 NWLR (PT. (Kutoka 11:52) N. E. P. A. v. Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 798 (mwisho wa mwaka) "Utawala wa mahakama unawekwa na katiba au sheria, na ni suala la ""kiwango,"" ""kupiga moyo"" wa kesi hadi kiwango ambacho mahakama inapokosa mamlaka ya kusikia jambo na inaendelea kusikia jambo, haijalishi ni jinsi gani vizuri kushughulikiwa, kesi nzima itakuwa nullity. """ Hii inaelezea kwa nini inaweza kuinuliwa katika Mahakama Kuu, Mahakama ya Rufaa na Mahakama Kuu wakati wowote. Danga v. Usman (2013). Barclays Bank of Nigeria v. Benki Kuu ya Nigeria (1976) Katika kuamua kama tendo lilikuwa nje ya mamlaka ya hakimu kwa madhumuni ya kinga ya mahakama, lengo si juu ya kama hatua maalum ya hakimu ilikuwa sahihi au isiyofaa, lakini juu ya kama hakimu alikuwa na mamlaka ya lazima ya kufanya tendo la aina hiyo katika kesi. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kesi ya ""Mireles v. Waco"" (Mara 502 U.S. 9 112, S.C. 286, 289, 116 L.E.D.)." 2D9 (1991) Wakati mahakama haina mamlaka ya kujadili au kuamua suala, inastahili kwa upande wa kinyume kupinga uwezo wa mamlaka ya mahakama kupitia pingamizi la awali. Katika hali ambapo mahakama ilishindwa kukataa au kukubali makosa yake ya kukosa mamlaka, uamuzi wowote uliofikiwa unaweza kukata rufaa dhidi yake, mahakama ya rufaa inaweza kugeuza uamuzi wa awali. Per Tobi, J.C.A. (Kama alivyokuwa wakati huo) katika Onagoruwa v. I.G.P. (NWT-Rs.593 na NWT-Rs.593 na NWT-Rs.593 na NWT-Rs.593 na NWT-Rs.593 na NWT-Rs. F-H alituelimisha kwa bidii juu ya hili: <unk> Mahakama ya sheria inaweza kukataa suala wakati imesikilizwa kwa sifa zake na sio wakati jambo hilo lilipaswa kupunguzwa kwa sababu ya ukosefu wa mamlaka. Mamlaka, kama suala la sheria, na si suala la ukweli, inaweza kuwa regularized na mwombaji katika visa fulani. "Hiyo si kama ukweli wa kesi ambayo ni ya kudumu kama jua linaloinuka kutoka Magharibi na kuingia Mashariki kila siku. """ Kwa hiyo, ikiwa kesi itakataliwa kwa sababu ya ukosefu wa mamlaka, mwombaji hatakuwa na fursa ya kuitengeneza, ikiwa ni uwezekano wa kisheria kufanya hivyo. Mahakama za kwanza hazipaswi kukataa kesi kwa sababu hazina mamlaka ya kuzisikiliza. Waache tu wafanye hivyo. "Kama ilivyoelezwa katika kesi ya ""Mwanamke dhidi ya Gavana wa Jimbo la Ogun"" (L.P.L.R. 4496) na ""Mwanamke dhidi ya Jimbo la Ogun"" (L.P.L.R. 4496) na ""Mwanamke dhidi ya Jimbo la Ogun"" (L.P.L.R. 4496) na ""Mwanamke dhidi ya Jimbo la Ogun"" (L.P.L.R. 4496) na ""Mwanamke dhidi ya Jimbo la Ogun"" (L.P.R. 4496) na ""Mwanamke dhidi ya Jimbo la Ogun"" (L.P.R. 4498) na ""Mwanamke dhidi ya Jimbo wa Ogun" "Kwa hivyo, kwa muda mrefu kama afisa wa mahakama ana imani ya uaminifu kwamba anafanya kazi ndani ya mamlaka, ingawa anaweza kuwa amekosea, au hata hajui sheria, haitowajibika kwa hatua inayotokana na hiyo. ""Ni muhimu kutambua kwamba wakati kuna mazoezi ya wajibu wa mahakama kulingana na mamlaka ya mahakama, hakutakuwa na kizuizi chochote cha kupunguza kinga ya mahakama na kazi." Kama vile mahakimu hawakuwa na wajibu kwa uamuzi uliofanywa ndani ya mamlaka na maadili ya ofisi yao, ndivyo hekalu la haki halingekuwa na wajibu wakati uamuzi wa makosa utakapotolewa, kwa kuwa mahakama haina utu wa kisheria, haiwezi kushtaki wala kushtakiwa. Ni kanuni ya sheria iliyowekwa vizuri kwamba ni mtu wa kisheria tu anayeweza kushtaki na kushtakiwa. Hii imekubaliwa bila vizuizi katika kesi nyingi, Angalia Carlen v. Chuo Kikuu cha Jos 1 NWLR (PT. 323) 631. Katika kesi ya Egbele v. Adefarasin (1985) 1 (NWLR P.T. 549 (supra), mahakama ilichunguza kifungu cha 88 (1) cha Sheria ya Mahakama Kuu ya Jimbo la Lagos, ikisisitiza tena kwamba majaji hawana hatia ya kisheria kwa chochote walichofanya katika uwezo wao wa mahakama. "Katika kifungu cha 88 (1) cha Sheria ya Mahakama Kuu ya Jimbo la Lagos, ambayo inasema: ""Hakuna hakimu anayehusika na kitendo chochote alichokifanya au kuamuru afanywe katika kutekeleza wajibu wake wa mahakama, iwe au la, ndani ya mipaka ya mamlaka yake, ikiwa wakati huo, kwa imani njema, alijiamini kuwa na mamlaka ya kufanya au kuamuru kitendo hicho.""" "Katika sehemu ya kwanza ya kifungu cha 21 (g) cha Katiba, Baraza la Mahakama la Kitaifa lina mamlaka kama ilivyoonyeshwa hapa chini ya: ""kuteua, kuondoa na kutekeleza udhibiti wa nidhamu juu ya wanachama na wafanyakazi wa baraza la mahakama"" (G) ""Maafisa wa mahakama wanapaswa kupewa uhuru wa kufanya maamuzi ya kubadilika na ya hiari katika utendaji wa majukumu yao rasmi." Hakuna shaka kwamba mahakimu wanapewa kinga kwa sababu ya matendo fulani wanayofanya wanapofanya kazi yao. Sheria ya kawaida na kinga ya kisheria kwa vitendo nje ya uwanja wa mahakama ni pamoja. Ni wakati tu wanapofanya kazi nje ya mipaka ya mamlaka yao na mamlaka rasmi na kwa wazi na kwa kweli nia mbaya, ni wajibu unaingia kupitia Baraza la Mahakama ya Kitaifa. Oladele Kehinde Emmanuel ni mwanafunzi wa shahada ya kwanza ya sheria katika Chuo Kikuu cha Ahmadu Bello Zaria, Jimbo la Kaduna Nigeria katika Idara ya Sheria ya Kiraia, Kitivo cha Sheria. Yeye amejitolea na kushiriki katika semina kadhaa, webinars, na mashindano ya mjadala na inaweza kufikiwa kupitia: E-mail: [email protected].