Comparative choice of jurisdiction rules in cases having a foreign element: are there any lessons for Nigerian courts?

Abstract

The question of when and how a forum court should exercise jurisdiction in civil matters having foreign elements has been a controversial one among judges, legal writers and students of conflict of laws. In Nigeria, the problem is more pronounced as the state operates a federal system of government, with each state having its distinct legislature and court system. The issue of interstate (and international) choice of jurisdiction in Nigeria has become more prominent in recent times due to cultural, social and commercial exchanges between private individuals or corporations from different parts of the country. While the majority of legal systems in the world now allow their courts to be seized of any matter with a foreign element once there is nexus between such matter and the forum state, Nigerian courts do not appear to be thinking in that direction. The courts over the years have maintained, though erroneously, that it is only the court of the state where a cause of action arose that can exercise jurisdiction over such a matter, especially in in personam actions. This paper seeks to point out the fallacy of the Nigerian courts in applying a strict territorial approach to jurisdiction in matters having a foreign element; the injustice and inconvenience it may occasion; and the fact that such a ‘straight jacket’ approach is out of tune in the modern world jurisprudence of personal jurisdiction.