CRIMINAL LITIGATION: TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION THROUGH CASES AND PRINCIPLES(STATE HIGH COURT)

WHAT IS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION?

This was defined in DARIYE V FRN (2015) LPELR-24398 (SC)

            ‘’Implies a geographic area within which the authority of the court may be exercised and outside which the court has no power to act’’

The court further stated that Jurisdiction territorial or otherwise is statutory and is conferred on the court by the law creating it.

GENERAL RULE: when an offense is committed, it is in the court within that jurisdiction that will have the power or authority to hear the matter.  This is because offenses created by states confers jurisdiction on the courts of that state.

However, in criminal proceedings, by virtue of Section 4 of Penal Code and Section 12 of Criminal code laid down some rules in relation to jurisdiction to try an offender.

RULE 1: In Section 12A Criminal Code is that Where by the provisions of any law of a State the doing of any act or the making of any omission is constituted an offence, those provisions shall apply to every person who is in the State at the time of his doing the act or making the omission.

This affirms the general rule that where an offence is committed, it is in the court within that jurisdiction that will have the power or authority to hear the matter.

SUB RULE 1: If a crime is one with multiple elements, with the initial elements and subsequent elements happening in different states the position of the law is that each state has a right to try the offender and punish him as if all the elements of the offence was carried out in that state. Section 12A (2) (A)

CASE: OKORO V A.G WESTERN NIGERIA:  The accused posted a letter in Port Harcourt which induced the fraud of certain people in Ibadan. The court HELD: Ibadan had jurisdiction to try the case since an element of the offence occurred in its territory. This same position was affirmed in HANNAH V STATE

SUB RULE 2: If part of an offence was carried out in a state, and other parts of the offence were committed in another state. If the offender later comes into the initial state, he would be held liable as if he committed the whole offence in that state. Section 12a(2)(b)

This is rule is applicable even in cases where a crime is partially, substantially or conclusively committed in one jurisdiction and the person is found or arrested in another state, that state will have jurisdiction to hear the matter.(LAW SCHOOL POSITION MR TIJANI SAID SO) provided that offence is punishable in that state.

CASE: PATRICK NJOVENS V STATE: The court was of the opinion that such entry into the state where the accused was arrested gives the state jurisdiction to try the offender as if he committed the whole offence in that state.This mere entry position was affirmed in HARUNA V STATE

N.B THAT THIS ABOVE POSITIONS AND RULES ONLY APPLY IN STATE HIGH COURTS