CORAM

---

JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

BALKISU BELLO ALIYU, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

APPELLANTS

---

MR. ZIKA OSENI

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, COURT, LAND LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, WORDS AND PHRASES

 

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Respondent as Claimant took out a writ of summons endorsed with a statement of claim against the Appellant as Defendant seeking a declaration that the Claimant is the owner in possession of all that piece or parcel of land known and called late MRS. UMU ZIKA’s family land and therefore entitled to the grant of a statutory right of occupancy over the said land. The Appellant filed a statement of defence denying the claim of the Respondent. The Respondent in turn filed a reply to the statement of defence. The Appellant thereafter filed a motion on notice on 25th February 2014, praying the court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction; and that the suit is an abuse of court process positing that the land in dispute in the case leading to this appeal forms part of the larger parcel of land, which is the subject of litigation in Suit No. OEACCA/41T/2002 – Chief Abibu Kadiru V Chief Mutairu Buhari. He referred to the affidavit in support of the motion, the statement of defence and the reply. The lower court dismissed the application of the Appellant for an Order striking out the suit for being an abuse of court process hence this appeal.

 

---

HELD

---

 Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Was the lower court right in holding that the suit of the Respondent is not an abuse of Court process?”

2. Did the lower court give judgment in breach of Section 294 (1) of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and if so, did it occasion a miscarriage of Justice?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS –CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS

---

“In the case of Saraki v Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 at 188 – 189 quoted in Ogoejeofo v Ogoejeofo (2006) 135 LRCN 786, 798 – 799, it was held that;

“The concept of abuse of judicial process is unprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite varieties 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 recognized that the abuse of the process may lie in both proper or improper use of the judicial process in litigations. But the employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issues 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. See Okorodudu v Okoromadu (1977) 3 SC 21; Oyebola v Esso West African Inc (1966) 1 All NLR 170. Thus, the multiplictly of actions on the same matter between the same parties even when there exists the right to bring the action 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. The abuse consists in the intention, purpose and aim of the person to harass, irritate and annoy the adversary and interfere with the administration of justice, such as instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different courts, even though on different grounds. See Harriman v Harriman (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 119) 6. Similarly, so held was where two similar processes were used in respect of exercise of the same right. Namely a cross- appeal, and a respondent’s Notice. See Anyadube v N.R.T Co. Ltd (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt. 127) 397, Jadesimi v Okotie – Eboh (1986) 1 NWLE (Pt. 16) 278. This Court has also held as an abuse of the process, an application for adjournment by party to an action to bring an application to Court for leave to raise issues of facts already decided by courts below _ See Alade v Alemuloke (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 69) 207”

Therefore for there to be an abuse of judicial process on account of multiplicity of actions, there must be;

(i) Multiplicity of suits

(ii) Between the same opponents,

(iii) On the same subject matter, and

(iv) On the same issues.

See Conoil v Vitol S. A (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt 1625) 463, 497 and Ajaokuta Steel Co. Ltd v Greenbay Investment and Security Ltd (2019) 8 NWLR (Pt 1674) 213, 233.” PER J. E. EKANEM, J.C.A

 

---

“RIVER” – DEFINITION OF “RIVER”

---

“A “River” has been defined as;

“A natural flow of water that continues in a long line across the land to the sea/ocean/

– Oxford Advance Learner’s Dictionary fh edition, Page 1265. PER J. E. EKANEM, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

2. Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended)

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT