In PEARSE v. OLOYEDE & ORS (2013) LPELR-22086 (CA), the court defined “inherent power”: Mayer v Rubin 2017 ONSC 3498 dealt with the court`s inherent jurisdiction to oversee the administration of estates, control their processes, and protect those who cannot fend for themselves. Although of limited applicability in the substantive field of law, the fact that the Tribunal relied on its inherent jurisdiction to create a basis on which an association without legal personality can be dissolved on the basis of the opinion of the majority of its members is a good example of how a party can invoke inherent jurisdiction. to achieve a fair result. It also shows how the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be used as a residual source of power, which can be used if necessary if it is fair and equitable. It should therefore be noted that, where procedural or substantive law may contain a gap in the clear power of the courts to state reasons for an act, inherent jurisdiction may need to be invoked to achieve the objective. The inherent jurisdiction of the court is an appendix to assist in the adjudication only when the established procedure is silent, but it should be recoverable only if it furthers the objectives of justice. Inherent jurisdiction is the power exercised by a court to exercise substantive justice in any matter before it in certain specific circumstances. Inherent jurisdiction complements the powers conferred by law on the court and is dictated by the need for the court to carry out its functions in order to achieve the objectives of justice. All courts have inherent jurisdiction because they are courts.
It is a necessary skill for the proper and complete administration of justice, e.g. courts have the inherent power to punish contempt. Inherent jurisdiction or powers are not conferred on the courts solely by the Constitution or legislation. These are the powers necessary for the administration of justice at the Court of Justice. Inherent power is the most valuable addition to the jurisdiction or express powers conferred on our courts by the Constitution, a statute or a court order. The inherent jurisdiction of the court cannot be exercised if the court is not competent, which means that the inherent jurisdiction of a court only applies when it has jurisdiction. Courts have inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of judicial process through frivolous or vexatious proceedings. Let me drop my legal ink on the premise that every court has inherent powers, inherent powers can be invoked in the interest of justice to complement the legal jurisdiction of the court, if the exercise of that jurisdiction may lead to injustice, that exercise of inherent powers is that: which gives the court the feeling that it is sufficiently fulfilled to be able to exercise substantive justice in a given case.
According to Black`s Law Dictionary (ninth edition), “inherent powers” means the principle that allows courts to deal with various matters considered to have intrinsic authority, such as (1) rules of procedure, (2) internal court budgeting, (3) regulation of legal practice; and (4) general judicial financial management. This chapter discusses the modern scope and limits of the application of the inherent jurisdiction of the court in common law systems. It takes into account the underlying legal basis of case law and theory, namely that residual powers have been conferred on the High Court in England and Wales by the Judicature Acts and that all courts have inherent powers to prevent abuse of process. It discusses the implications of distinguishing between inherent and inherent powers. Changes in the legal landscape since the founding articles of Master Jacob and Professor Dockray, including the codification of civil procedure in many common law jurisdictions and the modern understanding of the rule of law and the separation of powers, are taken into account. It is argued that, if existing applications of inherent jurisdiction are to be retained, it is no longer acceptable for the English High Court and equivalent courts in other jurisdictions to create a new procedural law by resorting to inherent jurisdiction. In Dunne v. Mahon (2), Hogan J. of the High Court exercised his inherent jurisdiction to ensure that a fair and reasonable decision was made with respect to the dissolution of an unincorporated club, Roadstone Group Sports Club. The club was founded in 1957 and was formed for the benefit of employees working with a subsidiary.
At the time of the hearing, the club was located on 6.7 acres of land and housed a large pavilion, various courts, a putting field, a large event hall, a bar and a restaurant. Full club membership was open to employees of the company, while associated membership was open to those who were not employees of the company. At the end of 2010, there were 349 associate members, 53 full members, one honorary member and two life members. Although the court found that the club`s finances were on a sound financial footing, the Grievor asserted that membership had permanently declined and sought dissolution. In the end, the association`s constitution contained no provision for amendment and was originally silent on what would happen to the association`s assets in the event of dissolution. Therefore, all of these questions had to be asked of Hogan as part of the motion to dissolve the club. Inherent jurisdiction is an English common law doctrine that a superior court has jurisdiction to hear any matter before it, unless a statute or rule limits that power or grants exclusive jurisdiction to another court or tribunal. The term is also used when a state institution derives its competence from a basic instrument of government such as a constitution. In the English case of Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd, Lord Diplock described the inherent jurisdiction of the court as a general power to control its own procedures in order to prevent it from being used for purposes of injustice.
In the case of COLONEL HALILU AKILU v. CHIEF GANI FAWEHINMI (NO.2) SC.215/88 – SC.216/88 When confronted with the meaning of the word inherent jurisdiction, the Supreme Court of the country was confronted with the meaning of the word inherent jurisdiction, Per NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C. stated: 28 The inherent jurisdiction of the tribunal is more likely to deal with matters concerning its own proceedings. It is used to fill gaps where Parliament has not provided an answer, for example: when it is appropriate to appoint a judicial officer to preserve and protect estate assets that may be at risk during litigation. 6 (1) The jurisdiction of the Federation shall be vested in the courts referred to in this section, which are courts established for the Federation. Thus, the inherent powers of the court may be invoked in the interests of justice to supplement legal jurisdiction where the exercise of that jurisdiction could lead to injustice. The powers inherent in a court, which can be exercised only because it is a court, seem to me to be the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction enabling it to act as a court and, where appropriate, to rule essentially on the specific case. 26 The General Court has broad and inherent powers to review the administration of estates and to control its own procedures. The court may, where appropriate, use its inherent jurisdiction to protect the parties before it so that justice can be done in the proceedings.
Another limitation to the application of the doctrine of inherent jurisdiction appears to be that inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to create new rules of substantive law. In recognizing the significant difference from corporations (which have important legal provisions for dissolution), the judge concluded that a club does not exist without its own members and is not a separate legal entity. On that basis, he stressed that the law and practice regarding the existence of competence to dissolve such an association were not clear and not without difficulties. The Court relied on the Irish cases of Feeney/McManus (3) and Buckley v Attorney General (4) to confirm that, where the substratum of the respective associations no longer exists, it is competent to liquidate the club and distribute the proceeds equally among the members.