CORAM
PARTIES
HAJIYA UMMU AMINU APPELLANTS
DR. MOHAMMED JULDE SULEIMAN RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiff/Respondent by a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim sued the Defendant/ Appellant at the High Court of Adamawa State sitting at Yola, wherein he claimed the following Orders: an order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to return the Plaintiff’s title document in respect of the Plaintiff’s House at Dougirei, particularly Statutory Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/7641, an order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to immediately vacate the Plaintiff’s house at Dougirei Quarters in Jimeta – Yola. The Plaintiff also sought perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from entering the Plaintiff’s house and premises at Dougirei Quarters in Jimeta – Yola, covered by the Statutory Certificate of Occupancy No. GS/7641, an order directing the Defendant to immediately return the Plaintiff’s official car (Honda Accord) with Registration No. BQ 787RSH Chasis No. JHMCM46707202091 and Engine No. K20A85001922, to the Plaintiff and the sum of Ten Million Naira, being general damages for trespass to the Plaintiff’s house and loss of use of the Plaintiff’s official vehicle. At the court below, the Appellant raised a preliminary objection to the claim of the Respondent on the grounds that there is a similar suit before the Upper Area Court No. 1, Yola in Suit No. UAC1Y/CV/FI/236/11 between Engr. Ummu Aminu Vs. Dr. Mohammed Julde Suleiman & 2 Ors in respect of land at Dougirei drive; amongst others. In reply the Respondent filed a counter affidavit of four paragraphs in opposition. After considering the affidavit evidence of the parties and addresses of their counsel, the court below dismissed the notice of preliminary objection of the Appellant as lacking in merit. Displeased with the dismissal, the Appellant has appealed to this court. The Respondent did not file any brief and was also absent from court when the appeal was heard despite the service of hearing notice on him.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether based on the Writ of Summons, statement of Claim, the Applicant’s affidavit in support of the Preliminary Objection as well as the Exhibits and the Respondent’s Counter-affidavit the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Respondent suit.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ABUSE OF COURT PROCESSES – CONCEPT AND FEATURES OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS
“The concept of abuse of court process is imprecise. Abuse of court process contemplates multiplicity of suits between the same parties in regard to the same subject matter on the same issue. The common feature of abuse of process of court centres on the improper use of judicial process by a party in litigation aimed at interference with the due administration of justice. Some of the features of abuse of court process include:
Filing of multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponents on the same issues or numerous actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there is in existence a right to commence the action.
Instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different courts even though on different grounds.
Where two actions are instituted in court, the second one asking for relief which may however be obtained in the first, the second action primafacieis vexatious and a abuse of court process.
–
ABUSE OF COURT PROCESSES –EFFECT OF AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESSES
“The claims or reliefs may be worded differently but it still amounts to an abuse of process where the end result of the two or more actions is the same. A litigant has no right to pursue two processes together which will have the same effect in two courts at the same time. See R-Benkay Nigeria limited V. Cadbury Nigeria Limited (2012) LPELR-7820 SC; Justice Onyemi (Rtd) V. Owoeye&Anor (2017) LPELR – 41903 SC,Allanah&Ors V. Kpolokwu (2016) LPELR-40724 SC and Umeh&Anor V. Iwu&Ors (2008) LPELR – 3363 SC. The effect of abuse of court process is the dismissal of the process which is abusive.See Dingyadi&Anor V. Independent National Electoral Commission (2011) LPELR 950 SC. –
ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – WHETHER AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS AMOUNTS TO AN IRREGULARITY THAT CAN BE PARDONED
“The courts have always frowned at forum shopping by litigants, moreso where a matter is pending before another court. It is an abuse of court process, which is not merely an irregularity that could be pardoned or overlooked but, it constitutes a fundamental defect, the effect of which would lead to a dismissal of the process that is abusive”.
ABUSE OF COURT PROCESSES –DUTY OF COURT WHERE THE PROCEEDING BEFORE IT AMOUNTS TO AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESSES
“In the case of Arubo Vs. Aiyeleru (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 280) Page 125, the Supreme Court held that once a court is satisfied that the proceeding before it amounts to an abuse of process, it has the right or duty to invoke its powers to punish the party which is in abuse of its process. The resultant effect is a dismissal of the action which constitutes the abuse, in the present case, the action instituted at the High Court. See, Adesanoye Vs. Adewole (2000) 9 NWLR (PT. 127) Page 671 and Dingyadi & Anor Vs. INEC & Ors (2011) LPELR – 950 (SC). –
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|