PASTOR SAMUEL BORTIER AHIA V. STARPOLE INVESTMENT LTD
March 23, 2025CHELLARAMS PLC V. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC
March 23, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 12193 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
Holden at Lagos
Thu Jun 9, 2022
Suit Number: CA/L/1216/2017
CORAM
OBANDE FESTUS OGBUINYA
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO
PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN
PARTIES
BONITAS NIGERIA LTD
APPELLANTS
TEJU INVESTMENT AND PROPERTY
COMPANY LTD.
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, COURTS, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Claimant/Appellant and the Defendant/Respondent entered into a lease agreement for 10 years wherein the Claimant/Appellant as a tenant occupied the property known as No. 35/41 Mobolaji Bank Anthony Way, Ikeja, Lagos State (the property). A dispute erupted between the parties on the renewal of the lease, which prompted the Defendant/Respondent to approach the High Court of Lagos State seeking for the interpretation of the lease agreement on the renewal rights of the parties. Parties eventually settled the dispute and entered a consent judgment. Subsequently, Claimant/Appellant approached the Court via a writ of summons wherein it tabled against the Respondent a galaxy of declaratory and executory reliefs. The Defendant/Respondent in response filed his statement of claim and a counter claim. The Claimant/Appellant later filed a preliminary Objection wherein it prayed the Court to dismiss the Defendant/Respondent counter- claim for being incompetent and an abuse of court process. The Court after hearing from parties on the preliminary Objection dismissed the Objection. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the court, the Claimant/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the Honourable trial judge was right in refusing to dismiss the counter claim in suit No. ID/74321/14 as an abuse of court process in the circumstances of the application.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – DUTY OF THE COURT WITH REGARDS TO THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION
“The law compels the courts to accord premier attention to issue of jurisdiction, which is numero uno in adjudication, when raised in any proceedings, see Okwu v. Umeh (2016) NWLR (Pt. 1501) 120; Brittania-U (Nig.) Ltd. v. Seplat Pet. Co. Dev. Ltd. (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt.1503) 541; Oni v. Cadbury Nig. Plc. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 80; Diamond Bank Ltd. v. Ugochukwu (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1517) 193; PDP v. Umeh (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579); APC v. Ndual (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 1; Adama v. Maigari (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1658) 26; APC v. Lere (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1705) 254. I will obey this legal commandment so as not to insult the law.” PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A
ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – NATURE OF THE TERM “ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS”
“The term “abuse of court process” is an elusive concept in the wide domain of litigation. It exhibits variegated forms and is disobedient to one single definition. It has become a mantra in adjudication. It is usually erected, as a shield, by defending parties to abort the life span of an action in its embryo. A law Lord, Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, captured graphically the purport and hallmarks of the term in the celebrated case of Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 11/12 SCNJ (Pt. 1) 26 at 48-49, (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 at 188, in these illuminating words:
The concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise. It Involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. Its one common feature is the improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice. It is recognised that the abuse of process may lie in both a proper and improper use of the judicial process in litigation. But the employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent, and the efficient and effective administration of justice. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues…. Thus the multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to bring the action is regarded as an abuse. The abuse lies in the multiplicity and manner of the exercise of the right, rather than the exercise of the right, per Se.
These all-encompassing features of abuse of court process have been re-echoed severally by the apex court in an avalanche of decided authorities, see CBN v. Ahmed (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt.7424) 369; Ntuks v. NPA (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) 392; Dingyadi v. INEC (No. 2) (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1224) 154; Dingyadi v. INEC (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 347; Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2011) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1277) 727; Barigha v. PDP (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1349) 108; Igbeke v. Okadigbo (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 225; Ogboru v. Uduaghan (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1370) 33; Denton-West v. Jack (2013) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1377) 205; Ikechukwu v. Nwoye (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1446) 367; Okorocha v. PDP (2014) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1406) 213 Bukoye v. Adeyemo (2017) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1546) 173; Mabamije v Otto (2016) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1529) 171, Oyeyemi v. Owoeye (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1580) 364; PDP v. Sheriff (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1580) 364; Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc v. L.G.C. Ltd. (2017) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1598) 431; Conoil v. Vitol S.A. (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 463; Alli v. NUC (2018) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1641) 161; Nwora v. Nwabueze (2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1670) 1; Ogar v. Igbe (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1678) 534; Dike-Ogu v. Amadi (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1704) 45.
It is discernible from the elastic nature of abuse of judicial process, that there are no hard and fast rules in detecting the absence or presence of it in any action. Put simply, a court is enjoined by law to examine each case, predicated on its facts and circumstances, in order to ascertain if it displays an abuse of court process or not, see Waziri v. Gumel (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1304) 185. On this score, the factual antecedents of each case have to be matched with the negative elements of abuse of court process. The barometer to gauge the existence of abuse of court process is the presence of multiplicity of suits bordering on the same issues and subject-matter between the same parties.” PER O.F. OGBUINYA, J.C.A
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999(as amended)
