The Supreme Court has clarified the rules on jurisdiction and transfer. Where the Federal High Court wrongly assumes jurisdiction in an employment dispute, the appellate courts may transfer the matter to the National Industrial Court under section 22 of the Supreme Court Act. The case is W.A.E.C. v. Folorunsho (2025) 17 NWLR (Pt. 2014) 283.
Facts
The respondent had served the appellant for many years. After his employment ended, the appellant refused to place him on pension.
Consequently, he sued at the Federal High Court, seeking declaratory and monetary reliefs over his claimed pension entitlement. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and entered judgment in his favour.
The appellant therefore went to the Supreme Court. It argued that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction under section 251(1)(p) of the Constitution, because the appellant is not an agency of the Federal Government.
The respondent answered in the alternative. Even if jurisdiction was absent, he said, the Supreme Court should use section 22 of the Supreme Court Act to transfer the case to the National Industrial Court. That is the court the Constitution vests with labour and employment jurisdiction.
Issue
The question was narrow. Given section 251(1)(p) of the Constitution, did the Federal High Court have jurisdiction over a claim arising from a refusal to pay pension benefits?
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Court held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction over the employment claims.
Above all, two reasons supported that conclusion. The West African Examinations Council is not an agency of the Federal Government within section 251(1)(p). Claims about pensions, employment and labour also fall squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court under sections 254C and 254D of the Constitution.
Next, the Court addressed the right order to make. Under section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act, a court that lacks jurisdiction should transfer the matter to the court that has it, rather than strike the case out.
Section 22 of the Supreme Court Act allows the Supreme Court to make any order a court of first instance could make. On that basis, the Court held it could make a consequential order of transfer, and it transferred the case to the National Industrial Court.
Commentary: what this means for jurisdiction and transfer
In September 2025 we examined Usman v. Nigeria Unity Line Plc [2025] 15 NWLR (Pt. 2008) 267. Our alert asked whether that decision had rendered section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act otiose.
In short, our concern was straightforward. The reasoning appeared to disable the Federal High Court from using its express statutory power of transfer in the very situation the power exists for.
That created an internal inconsistency. Earlier authorities had confirmed two things. The Federal High Court keeps its power to transfer where it considers that it lacks jurisdiction. The Supreme Court may also step into the position of the trial court under section 22 of the Supreme Court Act and order a transfer to the proper court.
In our view, W.A.E.C v. Folorunsho states the law correctly. It aligns with the established appellate authorities.
Specifically, it confirms that section 22(2) is triggered precisely when the Federal High Court lacks jurisdiction. Equally, the judgment confirms that the Supreme Court sits in as good a position as the trial court to order that transfer. The Court of Appeal holds similar derivative authority under section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act. By restoring the statutory logic of section 22(2), the decision clears up the confusion that followed Usman.
One point deserves emphasis. The Court did not expressly overrule Usman. Even so, where two Supreme Court decisions conflict, the later one prevails. Folorunsho therefore governs.
Practical effect
The ruling brings welcome clarity to a live procedural question. Jurisdictional errors are common in employment and commercial disputes, and the consequences of getting them wrong are severe.
Moreover, it reflects a pragmatic judicial attitude. Transferring a case to the right court serves substantive justice better than striking it out, because it avoids fresh proceedings, wasted costs and further delay.
Our review of the Supreme Court on binding precedent covers a related theme, and our Disputes 2025 Wrap-Up and 2026 Outlook collects the year’s key decisions. The judgment is available from the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
To discuss a jurisdiction or transfer question in a matter you are running, please contact our disputes team.