Inherent Power Of A Court

Inherent jurisdiction or inherent power of court is that which is not expressly spelt out by the Constitution, or in any statute or rule but which can, of necessity, be invoked by any court of record to supplement its express jurisdiction and powers. It is a most valuable adjunct to the express jurisdiction or powers conferred on our courts of record by the Constitution, any law, or rule of court.

The word “inherent power” was mentioned in Section 6 (6) (a) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). The said provision stated thus:

6 (1) The judicial powers of the Federation shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts establishment for the Federation.

(2) The judicial powers of a State shall be vested in the courts to which this section relates, being courts established, subject as provided by this Constitution, for a State.

(6) The judicial powers vested in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section-

(a) shall extend, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Constitution, to all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) “inherent-powers” means the principle that allows courts to deal with diverse matters over which they are thought to have intrinsic authority, such as (1) procedural rulemaking, (2) internal budgeting of the Courts, (3) regulating the practice of law; and (4) general judicial housekeeping.

The court in the case of PEARSE v. OLOYEDE & ORS (2013) LPELR-22086(CA) in defining “inherent power” stated thus:

Inherent jurisdiction of the court” has been defined as a source of law which is peculiar and special to civil procedural law. The jurisdiction of the court which is comprised within the term “inherent”‘ is that which enables it to fulfill itself and effectively as a court of law.

All Courts, by the fact that they are Courts have inherent jurisdiction. This is a jurisdiction that is necessary for the proper and complete administration of justice e.g. Courts have inherent power/jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Inherent jurisdiction or powers are not only given to the Courts by the Constitution or Legislation. They are those powers that are necessary for the administration of justice in the Court.

In the case of COL. HALILU AKILU v. CHIEF GANI FAWEHINMI (NO.2) SC.215/88 – SC.216/88 when the apex court of the land was faced with the meaning of the word inherent jurisdiction, Per NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C stated thus:

Inherent jurisdiction or inherent power, (as it is more commonly called) of court is that which is not expressly spelt out by the Constitution, or in any statute or rule but which can, of necessity, be invoked by any court of record to supplement its express jurisdiction and powers.

Inherent power is the most valuable adjunct to the express jurisdiction or powers conferred on our courts of record by the Constitution, any law, or rule of court. The inherent jurisdiction of the court is not exercisable when the court lacks jurisdiction, it means that the inherent jurisdiction of a court only comes in where it has jurisdiction.

The inherent jurisdiction of the court is an adjunct to assist the delivery of justice only when the laid down procedure is silent but it ought to be evocable only when it promotes the ends of justice. An inherent jurisdiction of court is that power which a court of law exercises for the purpose of doing substantial justice in any matter with which it is seized under certain peculiar circumstances. The inherent jurisdiction supplements the statutory powers of the court and is dictated by need for the court to fulfill itself in order to meet the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court per Karibi Whyte, JSC in ADIGUN VS A. G. OF OYO STATE (1987) 2 NWLR (pt. 56) 197 aptly stated this:

Thus, the inherent powers of the court can be invoked in the interest of justice to supplement the statutory jurisdiction where the exercise of such jurisdiction was likely to result in injustice. The inherent powers which a court is entitled to exercise merely because it is a court seems to me to be the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction which enables the court to fulfill itself as a court and to do substantial justice where necessary in the particular case.

The courts of law have an inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of judicial process by frivolous or vexatious proceedings. Permit me to drop my legal ink on the premise that Every court is equipped with inherent powers, inherent powers can be invoked in the interest of justice to supplement the statutory jurisdiction of the court, where the exercise of such jurisdiction as it is may result in injustice, such exercise of inherent powers is what makes the court feel sufficiently fulfilled that it can do substantial justice where necessary in a particular case.