such investigatory and prosecutory powers are only limited to economic crimes. Counsel contend that what the Appellant does as regards the trial of the Respondent was to dabble into a civil transaction between the Respondent’s Company and Sokoto State Government, who never complained of any impropriety on the part of the Respondent. In aid, he referred to OMUMA MICRO – FINANCE BANK (NIG) LTD V. OJINNAKA (2018) LPELR – 43988 (CA) to the effect that police or any law Enforcement Agency including the EFCC are not allowed to dabble into enforcement of civil contracts or engaged in the recovery of debts. It was further submitted that the EFCC does not have the powers to prosecute the Respondent for the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust from a civil contract between the Respondent and Sokoto State Government same not being an economic crime within the definition of Section 46 of the EFCC (Establishment Act) 2004. He referred to the case of Dr. Joseph Nwobike, SAN V. Federal Republic of Nigeria (supra) in contending that the Appellant cannot prosecute all kind of offences and that criminal breach of trust was not one of the offences listed as economic crimes. The very intrinsic and extrinsic nature of the issue of jurisdiction in judicial proceedings of a Court of law and the fatal consequences on the part of a Court to entertain an action are held to be of considerable antiquity to be elementary in our judicial jurisprudence. Hence, it is never too late in the course of the proceedings of all Courts in a matter, at all stages of the judicial ladder, for any of the parties or Courts to raise the issue of jurisdiction in any form, and that once raised or it arises, it should CA/S/114C/2022 Page 7