State High Courts Research Articles

Examining the Interconnectedness of State High Court Twitter

Examining the Interconnectedness of State High Court Twitter

THE STATE AND FEDERAL HIGH COURTS’ JURISDICTION OVER BANKER-CUSTOMER DISPUTE FROM THE PRISM OF DECIDED CASES: WHITHER THE MAGISTRATE COURT’S JURISDICTION

The Magistrate Court Law of most States in Nigeria, (including Oyo State) gives themjurisdiction over tortious acts of which detinue is one. Thus, where a bank customer, mistakenly makes an intra or interbank transfers to a wrong account whereof the money is withheld by the bank, and the withheld amountis within the monetary jurisdiction of the Magistrate Court, the customer, usually brings an action in detinue for the bank to release the money to him/her. This is usually donenotwithstanding that both the Supreme Court of Nigeria (SCN) and Court of Appeal (CA) have held that the State and Federal High Courts’ have concurrent jurisdiction over banker-customer disputes.This paper, adopts desk-based method in interrogating the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Court of Oyo State under the Oyo State Magistrate Court Law, 2011 vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of the State and Federal High Courts over banker-customer dispute based on decided cases to determine whether there is any conflict. It argues that the cases in which the SCN and CA have held that the State and Federal High Courts have and exercises concurrent jurisdiction over banker-customer disputes, were decided without reference to the jurisdiction of other equally competent courts including the Magistrate Court of Oyo State (and other States as well).It found that there is not jurisdictional conflict between these courts in relation to banker-customer disputes but symbiotic. The paper makes vital recommendations before concluding.

Virtual Court Proceedings in Nigeria: Some Legal Matters Arising

The outbreak of COVID-19 brought about the hitherto uncommon practice of e-filing as well as the practice of virtual court proceedings in the Nigerian Judiciary in a bid to dispense with extremely urgent, essential, or time-bound matters. The Lagos State High Court had its first virtual or remote court hearing on May 4, 2020, where a driver, Olalekan Hameed, was tried, convicted, and sentenced for the murder of 76-year-old Mrs Jolasun Okunsanya virtually. In the wake of these developments, there have been legal debates on the constitutionality or otherwise of virtual hearings. This Article examines the debates on the constitutionality or otherwise of the Nigerian courts’ adoption of virtual court proceedings. The paper concludes that though utilizing the development brought by ICT, the internet, and associated technologies, virtual court proceedings, and e-filing are practicable and desirable, a lot needs to be done in terms of building the capacity of the Judiciary, amending the rules of court, the RPC, reviewing the curriculum of Nigerian Law School and in mandatory training of lawyers on the use of ICT in legal practice.

The Pros and Cons of Technology in the Judicial Process in Lagos State, Nigeria

The application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of humans to the change and manipulation of the human environment is called technology. Its application to the judicial process in Lagos State Judiciary has made it easier to access information, file court processes, enable swift, and accurate research, and improve the delivery of justice thereby curbing the delay in the dispensation of justice though this is with some qualifications. The study juxtaposed and analysed the advancement of technology in the judicial process in Lagos State, Nigeria. Historical and case study designs were adopted. Doctrinal method was used in data collection. The primary sources of data were the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), Lagos State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019; Magistrates’ Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2009; Lagos State Chief Judge Practice Direction dated April 27, 2020; sources of secondary data were published textbooks, law reports, scholarly peer-reviewed journals, and articles. Data were content-analysed and presented thematically. Findings revealed that technology is needed for the advancement, development, and growth of the judicial process in Lagos State. Many a lawyer and litigants have not utilised the technology in the state’s judiciary. There is no clear legislation in the state protecting or guiding the utilisation of technology in the judiciary save the practice direction issued by the state’s chief judge in 2020. The study concluded that technology is necessary in advancing the judicial process in Lagos State. The study recommended that lawyers and litigants are to be properly educated vide seminars on how to ustilised technology in advancing the judicial process. The Lagos State House of Assembly should initiate a bill for the utilisation and applicability of the technology in the state’s judiciary.

Legal Analysis of The Essential Innovations in the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2023

Legal Analysis of The Essential Innovations in the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2023

Has the Controversy on the Jurisdiction of Federal High Court over Unregistered Trade Marks Matters Finally Been Resolved?

The uncanny characteristics of unregistered trade marks (TM) and its enforceability in Nigerian courts leave a wild imagination as to its legal protection and the appropriate court to seek redress and enforcement. Not only is the status of unregistered TM shaky, there is also the question as to which court can enforce same. Thus, the coordinate adjudicatory powers of the Federal High Court and the State High Court have been put to test in this instance. A joint reading of the Nigerian Constitution and the Trade Marks Act seem to have robed the Federal High Court of its exclusive or unilateral original jurisdiction to hear and determine TM cases in general. Yet, these statutory provisions enjoin divergent judicial pronouncements for and against the courts in issue. This paper reviewed the statutory provisions on trademarks and passing off as well as the Supreme Court decisions on the issue with a view to determining whether the apex court has overruled itself in its earlier decisions, now generally conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Federal High Court, in respect of all matters relating to trademarks and passing off particularly for non registered TM.The paper concluded that the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue was predicated on the subsisting and applicable law then as well as the peculiar facts of the case and, therefore, not a clear departure from its earlier position on unregistered trademarks.

Jurisdiction Of National Industrial Court Of Nigeria On Human Rights Enforcement: A Legislative Necessity Or Nimiety

Human rights violation has become a matter of great concerns within the temple of administration of justice. The imperative need to expedite the process of adjudication of human rights infraction necessitated arrays of legislative reforms aimed at removing the attendant delays and clogs to pave way for quick and unhindered determination by courts. The reforms are particularly significant with respect to the expanded and expansive jurisdiction of National Industrial Court in the area of human rights infringement in work place. Though conceived to be in stark conflict with jurisdiction of Federal High Court and State High Court as vested by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) on questions of human rights enforcement, the reform of NIC’s jurisdiction propelled the contention as to whether it is a necessity or an overabundance. This conceptual analysis relied on both primary and secondary sources of data in the interrogation of the issues connected to the discourse. It found that the reform is welcomed as it widened access to justice in the stern realities of widespread human rights violation in work place in particular, which are now better handled by no other courts other than a specialized court like NIC. However, it is equally found that the fact that NIC would have to grapple with filtering its newly vested jurisdictional competence on human rights enforcement vis-à-vis the express provisions of the Constitution and the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules (2009) which had hitherto vested exclusive jurisdiction on Federal High Court and State High Court on fundamental rights enforcement tone down the gains to mere nimiety. The paper concluded by making series of proposal for reforming the applicable laws in order to strike a balance between these extremes-‘necessity and nimiety’ as it relates to the jurisdiction of NIC on questions of labour related human rights cases by virtue of lessons learnt from Uganda and South Africa.

Ethnography, cacophony, and Lebanon as a zone of prestige in the anthropology of the Middle East

Ethnography, cacophony, and Lebanon as a zone of prestige in the anthropology of the Middle East

THE MEDIUM OF LANGUAGE IS ENGLISH IN INDIAN JUDICIARY: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

This article discusses non-English speakers and the legal system. The state high courts will likely adopt their respective official languages, which would be disastrous for the Indian judicial system. Language has always been a sensitive topic in India. The higher judiciary places a premium on the English language. Without a doubt, there is merit to the claim that district court litigants would benefit from hearing proceedings in their native tongue.

Appraisal of the Jurisdictional Issues Confronting Prosecutors of Tax Related Disputes and Constitutional Bottlenecks

Purpose: This paper examines the jurisdictional issues confronting tax enforcements, prosecution and other related issues. Jurisdiction over taxes administered at both the federal and state levels is determined by the legal personality of the taxpayer and place of residence for individuals. The Federal High Court, State High Courts and Tax Appeal Tribunal are vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine tax disputes. The Tax Appeal Tribunal is vested with jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from the operations of the Federal Inland Revenue Service. Tax disputes can be commenced either by the taxpayer or by the relevant tax authority. In practice, administrative channels within the relevant tax authority are usually the first step for resolution of tax disputes. Unresolved disputes proceed to the Tax Appeal Tribunal or Federal High Court, or where the tax is a State tax, to the State high court. The doctrinal research was used in carrying out this research.
 Methodology: Both secondary and primary sourced materials such as textbooks, journals, internets, case laws etc. were used.
 Finding: Finding reveals that there have been jurisdictional controversies confronting the constitutionality of TAT decision as well as the regular courts causing serious bottleneck for tax prosecutors.
 Recommendation: It is recommended that in order to ensure tax compliance, effective resolution of tax disputes and proper administration of tax system, the issue of jurisdiction must be clearly spelt out.

Custody of Children: The Jurisdiction of Family Courts Versus The State High Courts In Protecting The Interest Of The Child In Matrimonial Proceedings

Custody of Children: The Jurisdiction of Family Courts Versus The State High Courts In Protecting The Interest Of The Child In Matrimonial Proceedings

Order 38 Rule 9 of the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2023; Much Ado about Nothing

Order 38 Rule 9 of the Rivers State High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2023; Much Ado about Nothing

Fair trial rights, pre-trial civil motions in pending criminal cases and abuse of court process with reference to the Free State asbestos pre-trial motion proceedings

South Africans have become accustomed to almost daily news reports of litigation in our courts that involve politically powerful and well-connected individuals. The perception by the public is that in many instances litigants approach the courts for other reasons than achieving justice and are therefore misusing our courts and its processes.1 This becomes a matter of concern when such perceptions affect the trust and confidence that the public holds in respect of the judicial system and the rule of law. The recent Free State asbestos pre-trial motion proceedings illustrate some of these concerns. This article first comments on the judgment of the Free State high court in this matter, and focusses on the unmeritorious aspects of the applications made. These aspects included a claim that the applicants’ right to a fair trial were infringed, and the applicants’ disregard for the established principle against preliminary civil motions emanating from criminal proceedings. Legal practitioners advise their clients and must do so responsibly. For that reason, the second part of the article comments on the professional rules of conduct against the abuse of the court process in relation to legal practitioners’ obligations to both their clients and the court. This duty includes not to litigate causes or raise defences that have little chance of success or where they are initiated by litigants for purposes other than achieving justice. Improper purposes include delaying the proceedings to escape criminal liability and ultimately, accountability. In order to curb pre-trial litigation in any court other than the criminal trial court, the article proposes an extension of the Criminal Procedure Act to clarify when such other court may be approached for relief. It also proposes that a certificate of probable cause accompanies all pre-trial motions that emanate from criminal proceedings in a court other than the trial court.

APPRAISING THE DYNAMICS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

From the time of its establishment in 1976, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria suffered from a number of constraints and jurisdictional crises. Foremost among these was its non- recognition as a superior court of record as well as the fact that it had no exclusivity of jurisdiction with regards to labour related matters. The passage of the Third Alteration Act to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria came as a ground breaking intervention by firmly entrenching the status of the court as a superior court of record as well as conferring on it exclusive jurisdiction on labour matters. The expansion of the jurisdiction of the court to include among others, human rights issues that have a bearing on labour disputes also carried with it diverse thorny issues that need to be properly addressed and resolved. This paper therefore, attempts to comprehensively identify and analyse these issues bordering on the jurisdiction of the court with special focus on the boundaries of its special human rights jurisdiction as touching on the employer employee relationship. The paper adopts the doctrinal research method in undertaking this research and finds that the expansion of the jurisdiction of the court and the exclusivity of jurisdiction in all such other matters has the potential of restricting access to justice. It calls for the removal of exclusivity of jurisdiction in non-labour related matters, with state high courts having concurrent jurisdiction as well as the creation of additional divisions of the National Industrial Court.

State Supreme Court Responsiveness to Court Curbing: Examining the Use of Judicial Review

State legislatures introduce court-curbing legislation as they threaten to restrict the independence of state high courts. While scholars have examined when this legislation is introduced and what drives the introduction, we know little about how state supreme courts react to this legislation. In this paper, I begin the examination into how state courts react to court-curbing legislation by looking to the court’s exercise of its judicial review power. I theorize that state supreme courts are less likely to invoke their power of judicial review when facing increased court-curbing legislation because judicial review is the most direct form of communication between the branches. I also argue communication is necessarily conditioned by the methods of selection and retention in the states. Examining narrow and broad court curbing, I find that neither type of introduction affects the use of judicial review by the state supreme courts and that, in line with previous scholarship, courts are using legislative ideology as an informational signal in this interbranch interaction.

Appraisal of the Concept of Matrimonial Property under Nigerian Law

Family and matrimonial contracts are often oral, unwritten and made without fear of breach. Consequently, spouses contribute both financially and non-financial towards the success of the marriage and acquisition of their matrimonial home. Often, the shared intentions of the spouses is usually to create a comfortable home for the family and each make indirect, invisible and unquantifiable sacrifices towards the success of the marriage. The State High Court is conferred with unlimited discretion in respect of matrimonial property and in exercising this discretion it often insists that a party must show evidence of substantial and direct financial contributions to the acquisition of matrimonial property before joint ownership of matrimonial property is inferred. Basically the library based research, is adopted in this article both the primary and secondary sources of law are cited. The findings of this article are: (1) Where there is a document of title in favour of one party to the marriage, that property is lost as a matrimonial property.(2) Where a party is insisting that the property in issue is jointly owned, that party is responsible for producing evidence to the effect that both parties contributed adequately to the acquisition of the said property, whether financially or otherwise.(3) Oral evidence, even, about the parties’ private arrangements cannot be allowed to contradict the content of document of title. This article recommends for a statutory definition of matrimonial property that will ingrain the socio-cultural norms and values regarding marital relations as a communal and partnership arrangement.

A review of the court of appeal’s decision in Aliyu V. Federal republic of Nigeria & ORS

In 2017, the EFCC instituted an action at the Niger State High Court against Muazu Babaginda Aliyu, the former Governor of Niger State. While the case was still on and before it could be concluded, the EFCC instituted another case on money laundering at the Federal High Court, Abuja. The appellant believed that contrary to s. 36(9) of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, it was a case of double jeopardy for both cases to be filed against him in relation to the same funds. The appellant’s argument was founded on the belief that the charges of conspiracy and conversion of ecological funds filed at the State High Court were one and the same with the charges of money laundering at the Federal High Court. The appellant also argued that the Federal High Court was the court with jurisdiction and not the State High Court. He raised an objection on both issues at the State High Court but was ruled against leading to an approach of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal was then faced with the task of (i) distinguishing between the charges filed at both courts (ii) deciding which court had jurisdiction to entertain the charges (iii) determine whether there was a case of double jeopardy.

Jurisdiction for intellectual property in Nigeria: the Supreme Court may be final but not infallible

Jurisdiction is the fulcrum of any court or legislature. Jurisdiction for statutory intellectual property in Nigeria is vested in the centre in a federal system of government where legislative and adjudicatory powers are shared between federal and constituent governments. Historically, the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court (FHC) and State High Court (SHC) has been notoriously ambivalent in many issues – passing off being one of them. The passing off of intellectual property has been particularly problematic because of its common law origin and nature especially in the absence of a federal statute on it. This article reviews three different decisions of the Nigerian Supreme Court over time and argues that the Supreme Court may not have considered the ramifications of the different constitutions in those cases. It argues the position that the FHC should not exercise jurisdiction over passing off of intellectual property (common law tort) until there is a federal statute creating a substantive law on passing off. The jurisdiction lies with the SHC. It supports this position with the 1999 Constitution, state laws on torts as existing laws and the experience of Canada and the United States, and hopes the Supreme Court will, at the earliest opportunity, overrule or correct itself; or that the legislature will intervene.

Evaluating diffuse support for state high courts among individuals with varying levels of policy agreement

AbstractBackgroundCourts are unusually vulnerable governing institutions that rely upon deeply seated public support and notions of institutional legitimacy to flourish and remain policy‐relevant. This diffuse support allows courts to be viable policy entities while simultaneously issuing edicts that are counter‐majoritarian. A recent debate centers on whether policy disagreement affects members of the public's diffuse support stores for the nation's High Court.ObjectiveHere, we investigate whether policy disagreement between citizens and their state courts influences public perceptions of state court legitimacy (diffuse support). We also examine how those who disagree with state court policy making (policy “losers”) assay the legitimacy of their state courts differently than those who feel that their policy preferences are promoted by state courts (policy “winners”).MethodsWe draw data from the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), where researcher‐specific content for 1000 respondents allowed us to ask a number of questions about citizens’ perspectives on their state high courts. We employ Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze these citizen views of state legal institutions.ResultsWe find that policy agreement is quite relevant to citizens’ levels of diffuse support for their state courts and that the relative drivers of policy “winners” and “losers” assessments of their courts’ legitimacy do evince overlap but in important ways are distinct.ConclusionOur findings provide important insight on how citizens view courts and the law. Our investigation also sheds light on the dynamics of citizen disagreement with government outcomes and perceptions of institutional legitimacy.

Rigid rules and slippery standards: How the nature of U.S. Supreme Court precedents influences subsequent state court treatments

AbstractObjectiveThis research develops a new theoretical framework that explains how the U.S. Supreme Court's decision between a rigid rule and a flexible standard influences compliance with the decisions of state high courts over time.MethodsTo assess the effects of doctrinal rules and standards on state court compliance, we apply our theoretical framework to an examination of state court responses to Miller v. California (1973) and Atkins v. Virginia (2002).ResultsOur findings show that doctrinal characteristics of Supreme Court precedents influence state court treatments. Our central theoretical argument posits that applications and positive treatments of deterministic rules should decrease the likelihood of future positive treatments, whereas applications and positive treatments of indeterministic standards should increase the likelihood of future positive treatment. Our findings provide support for this expectation.ConclusionThis research demonstrates the importance of doctrinal characteristics in shaping state court compliance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Our findings suggest that rigid, deterministic rules, and slippery indeterministic standards influence lower court compliance in unique ways.