"The law is indeed well settled that the effect of a Court finding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a matter the proper order to make is one striking out the matter. See Okoye v. N. C. & F. Company Ltd. (1991) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt.199) 501 at 534." Per MOHAMMED, J.S.C. (P. 73, paras. B-C)   THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE v. THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ORS(2014) LPELR-22701(SC)

"It must be stressed that the jurisdiction of all courts are as provided for by the Constitution and/or the relevant legislation. Jurisdiction remains a question of law and a necessary requirement in all proceedings. Whenever the jurisdiction of a court is challenged the well laid down position of the law is that the plaintiff's claim determines the issue.

"It remains an elementary principle, though, that unlike the clock which returns on the weather abide the inconsistencies of the subject it reports on, a party must be consistent in the case he weaves and proves. He is never allowed to take on appeal a position different from the one taken at trial.

"The law is well settled that the appellant cannot make out a case different from that which he set out to do at the trial Court which must be borne out by the pleadings on the record." Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (P. 41, Paras. D-E)  JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"The law is well settled that the appellant cannot make out a case different from that which he set out to do at the trial Court which must be borne out by the pleadings on the record." Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (P. 41, Paras. D-E)  JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"The law is well settled that the appellant cannot make out a case different from that which he set out to do at the trial Court which must be borne out by the pleadings on the record." Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (P. 41, Paras. D-E)  JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"It was the submission of the distinguished senior counsel for the third respondent that, since the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial Federal High Court is circumscribed to the matters listed in Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), it is impermissible for the said Court to venture beyond them and deal with matters allunde (that is, from elsewhere).

"The subject matter of the Preliminary objection poses the question whether the Federal High Court should have jurisdiction in the absence of any relief claimed against INEC as a Federal Agency?

"I seek to highlight for purpose of emphasis that the underlying principle behind the enactment of Section 87(9) of the Electoral Act is to curtail any arbitrary exercise of power by a political party in the selection of their candidates for election; hence the imposition to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Electoral Act and the Guidelines. However, the supervisory function vested in the Court does not extend beyond borders so as to interfere into matters that are within the exclusive preserve of the political parties such as the issue of membership nomination now before us." Per OGUNBIYI, J.S.C. (P. 56, Paras. B-E)  JOE ODEY AGI, SAN v. PEOPLES DEMOCRATIC PARTY & ORS(2016) LPELR-42578(SC)

"The law is well settled on the cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes, laws and regulations wherein words must be given their ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning. No extraneous matters need be introduced. See Onyema v. Oputa (1987) 6 SC 362 at 371 and Egarebua v. Eribo (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1199) 411.