CORAM

---

Danlami Zama Senchi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Ruqayat Oremei Ayoola Justice of the Court of Appeal

Polycarp Terna Kwahar Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

MR. ADEDAYO SONAIKE

APPELLANTS 

---

1. GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC

2. GBENGA AKINDE PETERS 3. REGISTRAR OF TITLES, LAND REGISTRY, ALAUSA, IKEJA, LAGOS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

CIVIL PROCEDURE, ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS, JURISDICTION, COORDINATE JURISDICTION, RES JUDICATA, ESTOPPEL, MORTGAGE LAW, RECEIVERSHIP, PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, APPELLATE PRACTICE, BANKING LAW, PROPERTY LAW, FRAUD

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case involves a complex dispute arising from a tripartite legal mortgage dated 18th November 2012 over property at No. 2 Ahme Street, Off Olufemi Road, Surulere, Lagos. The mortgage was allegedly executed between Guaranty Trust Bank Plc (1st Respondent), Mrs. Adebola Ajibola trading as Ajibson Nig. Enterprises, and Emmanuel Kalejaiye Sonaike as guarantor for a loan of N25,000,000.00.

The Appellant, Mr. Adedayo Sonaike, claimed that his father Emmanuel Kalejaiye Sonaike had died on 3rd January 2011, before the execution of the mortgage deed, rendering it fraudulent. The 2nd Respondent, Gbenga Akinde Peters, was appointed as receiver/manager over the property pursuant to an order of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1406/2016.

Initially, the Appellant filed a notice of preliminary objection in the Federal High Court suit seeking to set aside the receivership order. However, the Federal High Court struck out his application as incompetent and premature, holding that issues of identity and title/ownership needed to be resolved first. The Federal High Court proceeded to grant substantive reliefs confirming the receiver/manager’s appointment and powers.

Subsequently, the Appellant filed a fresh suit at the Lagos State High Court (Suit No. LD/3336GCMW/2017) seeking declarations that the mortgage deed was fraudulent, that the receiver/manager’s appointment was null and void, and various other reliefs including damages and injunctive relief. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed a preliminary objection challenging the competency of the suit, which was upheld by the trial court.

The trial court struck out the Appellant’s suit, holding that it amounted to an abuse of court process as it was an attempt to invite a court of coordinate jurisdiction to sit on appeal over issues already determined by the Federal High Court.

 

---

HELD

---

1.The appeal was dismissed.

2.The Court held that the reliefs claimed by the Appellant at the lower Court were potentially an attempt to subvert the decision of the Federal High Court.

3.The Court found that a court of coordinate jurisdiction has no constitutional power to sit as an appellate court and review decisions of another court of the same hierarchy.

4.The Court held that the appropriate remedy available to the Appellant was to appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court rather than bring a suit before another court of coordinate jurisdiction.

5.The Court determined that the Appellant’s suit constituted an abuse of court process as it sought to re-litigate matters already decided by the Federal High Court.

6.The ruling of the High Court of Lagos State was affirmed, and cost of N200,000 was awarded in favour of the Respondents.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1.Whether the Appellant participated in suit No: FHC/L/CS/1406/2016 to warrant the trial court’s finding that his reliefs amounted to an attempt to mislead the Court into setting aside/sitting on appeal over issues already pronounced upon by the Federal High Court?

2.Whether the trial Court was right in refusing to entertain the Appellant’s claim on grounds that it amounts to an abuse of Court process?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

COORDINATE JURISDICTION – PROHIBITION AGAINST APPELLATE REVIEW

---

“The presumption has always been that the decisions of a superior Court are within jurisdiction and are correct until the contrary is proved. It seems to me that even if the decision of the superior Court is a nullity, the only proper way of challenging such decision must be by an application before the very Court which tried the case or by an application to the appropriate appellate Court even if the judgment of Longe J. were a nullity the proper way to set it aside is by an Appeal not be a review before a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.” – Per Court in CHIEF GANI V. A-G LAGOS STATE

 

---

COORDINATE JURISDICTION – GENERAL PRINCIPLE

---

“The general position of the law is that a Court of coordinate jurisdiction has not the jurisdiction to set aside the judgment of another Court of similar jurisdiction. That is the function of an Appellate Court.” – Per Court in ACB Ltd. v. Elosiuba

 

---

REMEDY FOR NON-PARTIES AFFECTED BY JUDGMENT

---

“A remedy in law is available to a person who is not a party to a suit where the judgment reached in the case affected him. In a situation like this, such a person is allowed in law to appeal with leave against the judgment as a person interested. See Section 243(a)and(b) of the 1999 Constitution; BELLO v. INEC (supra).” – Per OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.

 

---

DEFINITION OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

---

“The concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise. It involved circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same opponent on the same issues. See Okorodudu v Okoromadu (1977) 3 SC 21; Oyegbola v Esso West West (1966) 1 All NLR 170.” – Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

---

MULTIPLICITY OF ACTIONS AS ABUSE

---

“Thus the multiplicity of actions on the same parties even where exist a right to bring the actions 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.” – Per PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

 

---

ESTOPPEL AND RE-LITIGATION

---

“Generally, estoppel means a bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before. It is equally a bar that prevents the re-litigation of an issue already decided. See TUKUR VS. UBA & ORS (2012) LPELR 9337, CHUKWUMA VS. IFELOYE (2008) LPELR 862 and EBBA & ORS VS. OGODO & ORS (1984) LPELR 982.” – Per Court in GTB PLC v. ALBASU

 

---

PROHIBITION AGAINST RE-LITIGATION

---

“it is a cardinal principle of public policy that the Court should not encourage the relitigation of an issue that has been decided by a competent Court between the same parties in respect of the same matter, or cause or an issue in the course of a previous proceedings.” – Per EJIWUNMI, J.S.C.

 

---

PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA

---

“to determine whether the decision in question constitutes res judicata, one must look at the issues that call for determination in that appeal and the decision of the Court thereon. This is so because where a cause of action or an issue has been determined in a previous suit between the same parties, the said parties are, as a matter of public policy and in the interest of the common good to the effect that there should be an end to litigation, estopped from bringing a fresh action in any Court in the same cause and issue already pronounced upon by a Court of competent jurisdiction in the previous action.” – Per ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

 

---

APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING COORDINATE COURT DECISIONS

---

“I agree with the learned trial Judge in the Court below that the appropriate remedy available to the Appellant was to appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court – not to bring a suit before another Court of coordinate jurisdiction on issues which were intertwined with the decisions reached by the Federal High Court, both in respect of the ruling and the Judgment.” – Per RUQAYAT OREMEI AYOOLA, J.C.A.

 

---

CHALLENGING RECEIVERSHIP ORDERS

---

“The Appellant’s suit at the lower Court sought to challenge the receivership order already granted by the Federal High Court. The issues were, in substance, the same. The Respondents in both suits are essentially the same, and the subject matter, which is the ownership and control of the purported mortgaged property, is identical.” – Per RUQAYAT OREMEI AYOOLA, J.C.A.

 

---

CIRCUMVENTING APPELLATE PROCEDURES

---

“Accordingly, I hold that the suit at the lower Court was an attempt to circumvent a proper appellate route and indirectly challenge an existing decision by a Court of coordinate jurisdiction.” – Per RUQAYAT OREMEI AYOOLA, J.C.A.

 

---

EFFECT OF CONCLUSIVE DECISIONS

---

“Where a party or privy seeks to re-litigate matters already conclusively decided by a competent Court, the doctrine of estoppel and res judicata will operate to render the suit liable to be struck out.” – Per RUQAYAT OREMEI AYOOLA, J.C.A.

 

---

COVERT ATTACK ON JUDICIAL DECISIONS

---

“I am satisfied that the reliefs substantially overlap with matters conclusively dealt with in the earlier suit before the Federal High Court such as to amount to a covert attack on the decision. The Appellant’s failure to appeal the dismissal of his preliminary objection, refusal of joinder or the substantive judgment of the Federal High Court, does not entitle him to circumvent the finality of those decisions by filing a new suit before a coordinate Court.” – Per RUQAYAT OREMEI AYOOLA, J.C.A.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2. Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2004

3. Section 243(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution

4. High Court Laws of Lagos State

5. Federal High Court Act

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT