May 16, 2025
Legalpedia Citation: (2013) Legalpedia (SC) 61104 In the Supreme Court of Nigeria HOLDEN AT ABUJA Thu Jan 31, 2013 Suit Number: SC. 2/2004 CORAM GEORGE BAPTIST AYODOLA […]
CORAM
GEORGE BAPTIST AYODOLA COKER
PARTIES
HON. COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATIONTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF IMO STATEDR. DAN ONWUKWETHE GOVERNING COUNCIL. ALVAN IKOKU COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, OWERRI APPELLANTS
PROFESSOR LAWRENCE AMADI RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, ABUSEOF COURT PROCESS
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellants / plaintiff initially brought an application in the High Court praying for an Order of Certiorari quashing the administrative action of appointing the respondent as a new provost a college and the termination of the appellants / plaintiff appointment. The High Court dismissed the suit and an appeal was entered in the Court of Appeal contending this dismissal. Pending the determination of this appeal the Appellant/ Plaintiff applied for an interlocutory injunction in the High Court to stop the appointment of the Respondent/ Defendant. The Respondent/ Defendant also applied to the Court of Appeal for the same injunction against the Appellant/ Plaintiff, which was granted by the Court of Appeal. Aggrieved by this decision the appellants / plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that this act amounted to an abuse of Court process.
HELD
Appeal allowed
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have heard and granted the Respondents application before it notwithstanding that it was an abuse of the process of court. whether the respondent as applicant before the Court of Appeal had shown any special circumstances which made it impossible and impracticable to have first brought the application in the High Court.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE PRINCIPLE – CONCEPT OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE PRINCIPLE
“The “special circumstance principle” is not an imaginary concept but it is factual and which must be deposed to on an affidavit. It must also be a point of reference as to lay the foundational reasoning supporting the exercise of discretion in granting of the application.”
ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – MEANING OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS
“It is an established principle of law and which is settled that in situations of this nature, where there are multiple actions between the same parties on the same subject matter, the consequential effect is abuse of judicial process. In other words it is a situation where a party improperly uses judicial process to the irritation annoyance and harassment of his opponent, not only in respect of the same subject matter but also where the issues are the same in the other or actions.”
ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – POWER OF COURTS TO DISMISS OR STRIKE OUT A SUIT WHEN AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED
“The law is also firmly established that once a court is satisfied that any proceedings before it is an abuse of process, it has the power and the duty to dismiss or strike it out.”
CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS OF A STATUTE – GRAMMATICAL MEANING SHOULD BE APPLIED
“It is an elementary principle that where a statute is made up of clear and unambiguous words the intention of its makers is best deciphered by assigning the constituent words their grammatical meaning.”
ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – WHAT CONSITITUTES AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS
“Indeed multiplicity of suits or applications constitutes abuse of court process and once established, the court has the duty to either strike out or dismiss the subsequent suit or application that is before it. See: Agwasim V Ojichie (2004) 10 LWLR (PART 882) 613 AND N.I.M.B. LTD V UBN LTD (2004) 12 NWLR (PART 888) 599.”
JUDICIAL PROCESS – WHAT AMOUNTS TO AN IMPROPER USE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS?
“Multiplicity of court processes on the same subject matter before one or more courts of competent jurisdiction and between the same parties is what the courts have described as improper use of the judicial process to the irritation, annoyance and harassment of the other party and therefore described as abuse of process.”- See Ikine vs Edjerode (2001) 8 NSCQR 342 at 383-884.
ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – ORDERS A COURT WILL MAKE WHEN IT IS SATISFIED THAT AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS HAS OCCURRED
“It is settled law that once a court is satisfied that the proceeding before it is an abuse of process, it has the right and/or duty to invoke its coercive powers to punish the party in abuse of its process either by dismissing or striking out the offensive process.”
ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS BEFORE THE LOWER COURT RENDERS THE PROCESS INCOMPETENT
“Once it is determined that the process before the lower court was filed in abuse of process the said process becomes incompetent in law and that court thereby lacked the jurisdiction to hear and determine the same on the merit.”
CASES CITED
U.B.A Vs Stalban GMBH (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 110) 374 at 388|ikine and others V. Edjerode & others (2001) 8 NSCQR 342 at 383- 384|Attorney- General Ondo State Vs Attorney- General, Ekiti State (2001) 8 NSCQR 45
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|