CORAM

---

Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun JSC

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa SCN

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-iheme SCN

Yamilu Yammama Tukur SCN

Abubakar Sadiq umar SCN

---

PARTIES

---

BARR. ENYINNA ONUEGBU & 26 ORS

APPELLANTS 

---

1. GOVERNOR OF IMO STATE

2. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IMO STATE

3. IMO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

4. IMO STATE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE LAW, ABUSE OF PROCESS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants were duly elected Chairmen and Councillors of twenty- seven local government councils in Imo State. During their tenure, the 1st Respondent (Governor of Imo State) dissolved the local government councils. The appellants initially challenged this dissolution in Suit No. HOW/312/2011, which was dismissed by the High Court. While their appeal of that dismissal was pending, they commenced another action (Suit No. HOW/499/2012) seeking declarations about their tenure and injunctions against the conduct of new elections. The respondents raised a preliminary objection arguing that the new suit constituted an abuse of court process, citing a similar pending suit at the Federal High Court Abuja (Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/483/2012). The trial court dismissed the appellants action both on the preliminary objection and on merits. The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

2. The Supreme Court affirmed that the appellants suit constituted an abuse of court process.

3. The court held that documents attached to affidavits need not be certified.

4. The court found that incomplete submissions in appellate briefs cannot be remedied by speculation.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the lower court was right to hold that the appellants Ground 3 was deemed abandoned due to missing paragraphs in their brief.?

2. Whether the court below was right in shifting the burden of proof of abuse of court process to the appellants.?

3. Whether the lower court was right in affirming the trial courts decision regarding the incompetent status of the Abuja suit.?

4. Whether the court below was right regarding the retrospective amendment of local government tenure provisions.?

5. Whether the court below was right to disregard Supreme Court precedent regarding payment of entitlements.?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO AFFIDAVITS – CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS:

---

“The point has to be made that copies of public document attached to an affidavits exhibits need not be certified true copies because the documents already form part of the evidence adduced by the deponent before the Court and are available to the Court to use once it is satisfied that they are credible. “- Per Peter-Odili JSC

 

---

PROHIBITION OF JUDICIAL SPECULATION – COURT’S APPROACH TO MISSING EVIDENCE:

---

“A Court cannot decide issues on speculation no matter how close what it relies on may seem to be to the facts. speculation is not an aspect of inference that may be drawn from facts that are laid before the Court. Inference is a reasonable deduction from facts whereas speculation is a mere variant of imaginative guess which, even when it appears plausible should never be allowed by a Court of law to fill any hiatus in the evidence before it.” – Per Stephen Jonah Adah JSC

 

---

DEFINITION AND ELEMENTS OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS:

---

“The term abuse of Court process has an element of malice in it. To amount to an abuse of process, the proceeding or step in the proceeding complained of, will, in any event, be lacking in bona fides; it has to be an improper use or perversion of process after it had been issued.”- Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar JSC

 

---

DUTY OF COURT REGARDING SPECULATION:

---

“It is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to speculate, engage in conjecture or guesswork. As a corollary, it is not the duty of the Court to bridge the apparent yawning gap in the Appellants inchoate Brief of Argument.”- Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar JSC

 

---

TREATMENT OF INCOMPLETE SUBMISSIONS:

---

“The Issue 3 proffered by the Appellant at the lower Court was inchoate inevitably depriving the Court full insights into the Appellants arguments and submissions on the said issue.” – Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar JSC

 

---

ADMISSIBILITY OF UNCERTIFIED PUBLIC DOCUMENTS:

---

“The fact that Exhibit A was not certified before its annexure to an affidavit does not taint the admissibility of the document especially where the Appellants have not contested the facts contained in the document.”- Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar JSC

 

---

SIMILARITY OF ACTIONS – TEST FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS:

---

“A careful comparison of the subject matter and the reliefs sought by the Appellants in Suit No: HOW/499/2019 and the reliefs sought in Suit No FHC/ABJ/CS/483/2012 would reveal that the facts, subject matter and the reliefs sought in both actions are strikingly similar.”- Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar JSC

 

---

MULTIPLE ACTIONS – EFFECT ON JUDICIAL PROCESS:

---

“Considering the identical facts, subject matter and reliefs in both actions, it would have been desirable and in the interest of justice that the matter be confined to hearing in one Court only rather than in multiple Courts.”- Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar JSC

 

---

SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE AND FAIR HEARING:

---

“Had the Court speculated on what submissions might have been made therein and based its decision thereon, the appellants would have been well within their rights to complain at a later date of a breach of their right to fair hearing where the gaps turn out to have been wrongly filled by the Court.”- Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun JSC

 

---

COURT’S ROLE IN CASE PRESENTATION:

---

“It is also not the duty of the Court to assist a party in making his case, as this would amount to descending into the arena of conflict.” – Per Kudirat Motonmori Olatokunbo Kekere-Ekun JSC

 

---

SIMILARITY OF PARTIES AND OBJECTIVES:

---

“Since both actions seek to achieve a common objective, both actions are materially the same. It is therefore obvious that Suit No. HOW/499/2019 amounts to an abuse of Court Process.”- Per Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme JSC

 

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS – APPELLATE INTERFERENCE:

---

“I therefore see no reason or justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the lower Court.”- Per Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme JSC

 

---

COMMON OBJECTIVES IN MULTIPLE SUITS:

---

“I am of the firm view that the two actions are materially the same as both actions seek to achieve a common objective.”- Per Abubakar Sadiq Umar JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)

 Evidence Act, 2011

 Imo State Local Government Administration Law No. 15 of 2000 (as amended)

 Local Government Administration (Amendment) Law No. 15 of 2009

 Supreme Court Rules

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT