LSP149: State High Court jurisdiction over minors

This week’s article takes us to the street of the Court of Appeal, lodging at the hub of Joseph v State. In Joseph v State (2020) LPELR-51101(CA), the Court of Appeal provided a clear interpretation of the jurisdictional boundaries between the State High Court and the Family Court regarding criminal matters involving minors. As you know, a minor is someone generally below the age of 18 in Nigeria. This decision is rooted in the Child Rights Law of Kogi State, 2009, and the constitutional provisions that govern court jurisdictions in Nigeria. The main issue for determination is whether the State High Court can handle criminal cases involving minors, despite the establishment of the Family Court.

It is noteworthy that Sections 149 to 151 of the Child Rights Law of Kogi State, 2009, set up a Family Court specifically for dealing with issues related to children. Section 149 creates the Family Court, referred to as “The Court” in the law, designed to address children’s matters. Section 150 explains that the Family Court operates at two levels: as a Division of the High Court and as a Magistrate Court. Section 151 expands the jurisdiction of the Family Court, giving it broad authority to hear any criminal case involving or related to offences committed by or against children.

In Nigeria, courts follow the principle that laws should be interpreted based on their plain and ordinary meaning. This is known as the Literal Rule of Interpretation. This principle was emphasized in A.G. Federation v. A.G. Lagos State (2013) LPELR 20974 (SC), where the Supreme Court stressed that the intention of the legislature must be respected without altering the clear wording of the law.

Furthermore, the Family Court’s jurisdiction, described as “unlimited” in matters involving children, means it can handle a wide range of issues. However, “unlimited” does not mean exclusive. This distinction is crucial because it means that while the Family Court can hear many cases involving children, it does not have the sole authority to do so, allowing other courts, like the State High Court, to hear these cases as well.

Moving on, Section 272 of the Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) grants the State High Court broad jurisdiction over both civil and criminal matters. Section 272(1) authorizes the High Court to hear any civil or criminal case involving penalties, forfeitures, punishments, or other liabilities for offences committed by any person. This constitutional provision ensures the State High Court retains its jurisdiction unless explicitly limited by the Constitution itself. This constitutional jurisdiction cannot be overridden by any other legislation. Any attempt to do so would render the conflicting law void. Tukur v. Governor of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt. 117) 517. As such, the Child Rights Law of Kogi State, while creating the Family Court and granting it extensive jurisdiction, cannot negate the jurisdiction of the State High Court as given by the Constitution.

In the case under review, the appellant was convicted of kidnapping under the Kogi State Kidnapping, Thuggery, and Other Related Offences (Prohibition) Law, 2010. This law, enacted by the Kogi State House of Assembly, creates criminal offences under the State High Court’s jurisdiction.

The appellant argued that the State High Court lacked jurisdiction because the victim was a minor, suggesting that the Family Court should have exclusive jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, highlighting that the Child Rights Law does not grant exclusive jurisdiction to the Family Court. The Court emphasized that the State High Court’s jurisdiction, outlined in Section 272 of the Constitution, remains intact and cannot be displaced by the Child Rights Law. The Court further clarified that the Family Court’s jurisdiction is broad but not exclusive, allowing the State High Court to adjudicate cases involving minors, particularly those concerning serious offences like kidnapping.

In conclusion, the principle of law is that the State High Court has jurisdiction to hear criminal matters involving minors despite the establishment of the Family Court under the Child Rights Laws of states as its jurisdiction is not exclusive and cannot override the constitutional jurisdiction conferred on the State High Court. Despite being the sole judicial authority on this matter, the decision aligns with the principle that statutory provisions should not override constitutional mandates. While I expect the Supreme Court to provide finality on this subject in subsequent years, the decision in Joseph’s case remains the law. .

Thank you for reading. leave a comment. we need more of it. see you next week❤️🙏