Court

• Pages: 6-776

6

COFURT.

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS.

Abuse of Court process and duty on Court to prevent. (1) “The interim order of 25/7/2000 is

still operative until discharged. This order was not by any means discharged or terminated before

the learned Judge embarked on hearing another ex-parte application in respect of the same subject-

matter between virtually the same parties and ultimately granted another order of restrain while

one was still subsisting and operative between the parties. It is still the greatest privilege and

prerogative of one saddled with the administration of justice that once an abuse of the process of

Court is apparent, he should not hesitate to nip it in the bud. An example of abuse of Court process

is for different actions based on the same facts between the same parties to be filed in different

Courts or even the same Court simultaneously in respect of the same right and subject-matter. A

Court of law will always prevent the improper use of its machinery. Benaplastic Industries

Ltd. v. Vasilyev (1999) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 624) 620; Harriman v. Harriman (1989) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

119) 6; CBN v. Ahmed (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 724) 369.” – Per Adekeye, J.C.A., in Ezenwaji v.

UNN Suit No. CA/E/119/2001; (2006) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 967) 325 at 343. (2) “A litigant has no right

to pursue pari passu two processes which will have t he same effect in two Courts at the same time,

with a view to obtaining victory in one of the processes or in both. Litigation is not a game of chess

where players outsmart themselves by dexterity of purpose and traps. On the contrary, litigation is

a contest by judicial process where the parties place on the table of justice their different positions

clearly, plainly and without tricks.” – Per Tobi, J.S.C., in Agwasim v. Ojichie Suit No. S.C.

15/2000; (2004) 10 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 882) 613 at 624. (3) “In my view the issue of whether a party

had abused the process of the Court is a matter of fact. As between the same parties no man should

be vexed twice for the same cause of action by the improper use of the judicial process. This

interferes with the effective and efficient administration of justice. See Saraki v. Kotoye (1992)

9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 264) p. 156, The motion ex parte filed before and granted by Ojo, J. cannot be an

improper use of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of the appellants who were

never put on notice before it was discontinued by the respondents. As at the time the action at the

Federal High Court was filed, the motion on notice having not been filed, the entire action before

Ojo, J. automatically became spent and void. See Ezeadukwa v. Maduka (1997) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

518) p. 635 at p. 670. The action before Orilonise, J. was first in time and even though pending

before the application under review was filed was between different parties and had a different

subject matter and different issues for determination.” – Per Ogunwumiju, J.C.A., in Gov., Kwara

State v. Lawal Suit No. CA/IL/32/2004; (2007) 13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1051) 347 at 385. (4) “The

conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge is with respect unsupportable. From the affidavit

evidence reproduced above, the detention of the 1st applicant was on the basis of a remand order

issued by a Chief Magistrate of Lagos State. A copy of the warrant was annexed as exhibit CP6.

The 1st applicant and others detained with him had filed suit No: FHC/L/CS/1203/2012 for the

enforcement of their fundamental rights based on the same detention of 9th - 19th October. The

learned trial Judge Abang J. had struck out the suit on the grounds inter alia that a claim under the

Fundamental Rights provision is inappropriate where the remand is on the basis of an order from

a Chief Magistrate.” – Per Iyizoba, J.C.A., in I.G.P. v. Ubah Suit No. CA/L/199A/2013; (2015)

11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1471) 405 at 441. (5) “There can only be an abuse of Court process where the

party accused initiated the Court actions or multiplicity of actions to the annoyance, irritation or

detriment of his adversary- see Shugaba v. UBN Plc. (1999) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 627) 459; Expo Ltd.

v. Pafab Enterprises Ltd. (1999) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 591) 449; and Zekeri v. Alhassan (2002) 14

7

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 786) 52 at 74.” – Per Adamu, J.C.A., in Hawad Int’l Sch. Ltd. v. Mima Proj. Vent.

Ltd. (No.2) Suit No. CA/K/271/2002; (2005) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 908) 574 at 607.

Appropriate order Court should make where its process is abused. “The Court below was

therefore right in holding that the appellant’s suit constitute an abuse of court process. The law is

clear as having been held that the appropriate order the Court is expected to make having come to

the conclusion that its process has been abused, is to dismiss the process which constitutes abuse.

See; Ojo v. A.-G., (2008) 6-7 S.C. (Pt. 2) 541, reported as: Ojo v. A-G., Oyo State (2008) 15

N.W.L.R. African Reinsurance Corp. v. JDP Construction (Nig.) Ltd. (2003) 4 S.C.M. 1, (2003)

13 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 838) 609; First Bank Plc v. T.S.A. Industries (2012) 14 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1320) 326,

(2012) 9 S.C.M. 76.” – Per Ariwoola, J.S.C., in Lokpobiri v. Ogola Suit No. S.C. 443/2015; (2016)

3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1499) 328 at 388.

Attitude of Court to an action that constitutes an abuse of its process. (1) “I have deemed it

expedient to reiterate, at this point in time, that this Court, nay any Court of law for that matter,

has an onerous duty under the provisions of section 6(6)(a) of the 1999 Constitution (supra), not

to treat with levity any action or proceedings before it that it considers to be an abuse of the process

thereof. Thus, the Court has a duty to invoke its constitutional powers and dismiss the action in

limine.” – Per Saulawa, J.C.A., in Okoreaffia v. Agwu Suit No. CA/PH/EPT/351/2007; (2008) 12

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1100) 165 at 189. (2) “My noble Lords, I seek your indulgence to say that this appeal

borders dangerously on abuse of Court process. It goes beyond matter than can be regarded as

irregularity. It is a fundamental vice deserving of the dismissal of the appeal. See Okafor v. A.-G.,

Anambra State (1991) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 200) 659. The election for which the appellant won the

primaries was cancelled outright. In appreciation of the fact that the election for which he was

nominated was cancelled, the appellant prepared himself for other primaries to be held in place of

the one cancelled. He spent his money obtaining the relevant form and campaigned extensively

and when he was screened out of the contest, he developed a brain wave to resurrect the result of

the primaries he won but which he impliedly agreed and accepted was dead and buried. He was

not a party to the primaries for the election to which he makes the absurd claim of applying the

result of primary which was abandoned when the election for which it was conducted was

cancelled. He is certainly a busy body, an interloper who had no reasonable ground to believe in

the success of his action. And he had the temerity to defy the concurrent decisions of the two Court

below to continue his abuse of process of Court in the apex Court. The political class may have

unlimited funds and time at their disposal but the Court’s time is precious and should not be wasted

in pursuit of shadows by any party or person.” – Per Ngwuta, J.S.C., in Sylva v. I.N.E.C. Suit No.

S.C. 85/2014; (2015) 16 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1486) 576 at 623 - 624. (3) “All Courts take a firm stand

against an established abuse of the process of Court. However, before a party is admonished, it

must be established that the erring party had abused the process of Court by improper use of the

process of Court - per Ejiwunmi, J.S.C. in Central Bank of Nigeria v. Saidu H. Ahmed & 2

Ors. (2001) 11 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 724) 369 at 390.” – Per Oduyemi, J.C.A., in Ogunsola v. A.P.P Suit

No. CA/A/65/M/2002; (2003) 9 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 826) 462 at 486. (4) “It is a term generally applied

to proceedings which are wanting in bona fide in the sense that they are brought mainly to annoy,

irritate or harass the opponent or are calculated to impede the administration of justice. The abuse

lies in the inconvenience and inequalities appurtenant to the aim and purpose of the action. The

term also connotes that the powers of the Court must be used bona fide and properly and must not

be abused. Let me further say that a Court of law which is as well a Court of justice will always

8

prevent the improper use of its machinery and will not allow it to be used as a means of vexatious

and oppressive behaviour in the process of litigation.” – Per Aderemi, J.C.A., in Unifam Ind. Ltd.

v. Oceanic Bank Int’l. (Nig.) Ltd. Suit No. CA/PH/33/2003; (2005) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 911) 83 at 99.

Basis of rule regarding abuse of process and what Court should do to prevent same. (1) “The

rule is that where matters involving the same issues are raised contemporaneously in two different

Courts, it is desirable and clearly in the interest of justice that these matters should be heard in only

one of these two Courts. It is designed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The basis of the rule

is the real possibility of two conflicting decisions in respect of one and the same subject matter. In

such a situation, it is desirable that the issues common to both matters are tried in only one Court.

See Royal Bank of Scotland v. Citrusdal Ltd. (1971) 1 W.L.R. p. 1472; Hughes King Nig. Ltd. v.

Harris 3 LRN p. 194; Okorodiulu v. Okoromadu (1977) 11 N.S.C.C. p. 105, (1977) 3 S.C. 21.”–

Per Rhodes-Vivour, J.C.A., in Dumez (Nig.) Plc. v. UBA Plc. Suit No. CA/A/5/2003; (2006) 14

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1000) 515 at 526 - 527. (2) “Once a Judge is aware of a case in his, or another

jurisdiction on the same subject matter as the one before him such a situation calls for caution.

Nowadays this is common and Judges should not allow it to occur. If they do and proceed with the

trial as if all is well, there is the real likelihood of two conflicting decisions at the end of trial -

which would end up polluting the streams of justice which ought to be kept pure at all times.” –

Per Rhodes-Vivour, J.C.A., in Dumez (Nig.) Plc. v. UBA Plc. Suit No. CA/A/5/2003; (2006) 14

N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1000) 515 at 527.

Can a subsequent suit between same parties on same subject be an abuse of Court process?

“It, in fact amounts to abuse of court process for her to file the second suit (ID/3228/94) which

relates to the same subject matter disposed of earlier in the previous suit.” ‒ Per Sanusi, J.S.C., in

Cole v. Jibunoh Suit No. S.C. 142/2006; (2016) 4 N.W.L.R (Pt. 1503) 499 at 540.

Can category of situations that ground abuse of Court process be exhaustive. “The appellants

have in this regard observed to the effect that categories of situations and conditions that ground

abuse of process are not closed. And I agree. In other words, the list is inexhaustive as each incident

of abuse of Court process has to be established from the circumstances of each particular case as

exemplified in the suit of Anyaduba v. N.R.T. Co. Ltd. (1990) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 127) 397 at 400.” –

Per Chukwuma-Eneh, J.S.C., in Umeh v. Iwu Suit No. S.C. 60/2007; (2008) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1089)

225 at 243.

Can commencement of similar proceedings per se constitute an abuse of Court process.

“Commencement of similar proceedings in different Courts would not constitute such an abuse of

Court process that can lead to a dismissal. One can be stayed for the other to proceed in desirable

cases. See Toriola v. Williams (1982) (Pt. 1) Vol. 1 All NLR 177.” – Per Mohammed, J.C.A., in

Ngige v. Achukwu Suit No. CA/E/1/2004; (2004) 8 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 875) 356 at 362.

Can exercise of constitutional right of appeal constitute abuse of Court process. “A proper

exercise of a constitutional right of appeal as was done in the instant case which was not intended

to harass, irritate, annoy or interfere with the course of justice, but aims at protecting the right in

the litigation of the party exercising his constitutional right cannot in my respectful view be

regarded as reckless or frivolous so as to constitute an abuse of the judicial process.” – Per