WHAT QUALIFIES AS ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

USING THE JUDICIAL PROCESS TO ANNOY OPPONENT IS ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS

The improper use of judicial process in the multiple suits to irritate, annoy and harass the defendants, his opponents, is itself an abuse of judicial process.

– Ejembi Eko, JSC. Adegbanke v. Ojelabi (2021)

WHAT IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

It is recognised that the abuse of the process may lie in both a proper or improper use of the judicial process in litigation. But the employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue 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 S.C. 21, Oyegbola v. Esso West African Inc. (1966) 1 All NLR 170. Thus the multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to bring the action 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. The abuse consists in the intention purpose, and aim of the person exercising the right 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. l 19) 6.

— A.G. Karibe-Whyte, JSC. Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) – S.C. 250/1991

WHAT IS ABUSE OF PROCESS

There is abuse of process when a party uses the issue of judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of the other party and in the process disrupts the smooth administration of justice. A proceeding that is frivolous or oppressive is an abuse of process, e.g. filing multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue. See Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) p. 156. Agwasim v. Ojichie (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 882) p.613; Okorodudu v. Okoromadu (1997) 3 SC p.21.

— O. Rhodes-Vivour JSC. Stanbic IBTC Bank Plc V. Longterm Global Capital Limited & Anor. (SC.535/2013(R), 23 June 2017)

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS ON MULTIPLE ACTIONS

The trite position of the law on abuse of a court process is that it happens in regard to multiple actions between the same parties, on the same subject matter, when a party (such as the appellant in this appeal) improperly uses judicial process to the irritation, of annoyance and harassment of his opponent (the respondent herein) not only in respect of the same subject matter but also in respect of the same issues in the other action or actions. See: Okafor v. A – G Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.200) 659 at 681; Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.264) 156; Ikine v. Edjerode (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.745) 446.

— T. Muhammad, JSC. VAB Petroleum v. Momah (2013) – SC.99/2004

WHAT CONSTITUTES ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

Saraki vs Kotoye (1992) 11-12 SCNJ, on what constitutes abuse of Court process, as follows: “The abuse consists in the intention, purpose and aim of the person exercising the right of issue (of the process) to harass, irritate and annoy the adversary, and interfere with the administration of Justice, such as instituting actions between the same parties, simultaneously, in different Courts even though on different grounds … Abuse of process of the Court is a term generally applied to a process which is wanting in bonafide and is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. It can also mean abuse of legal procedures or improper use of judicial process.”

CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT ARISES

The concept of abuse of court process relying on numerous decided authorities is imprecise. It involves circumstances and situation of infinite variety and conditions. But a common feature of it is the improper use of judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice. The circumstances which will give rise to abuse of court process include:- a) Instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues on multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to begin the action. b) Instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different courts, even though on different grounds. c) Where two similar processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right for example a cross-appeal and a respondent’s notice. d) Where an application for adjournment is sought by a party to an action to bring an application to court for leave to raise issues of fact already decided by the lower court. e) Where there is no law supporting a court process or where it is premised on frivolity or recklessness. f) Where a party has adopted the system of forum-shopping in the enforcement of a conceived right. g) It is an abuse of court process for an appellant to file an application at the trial court in respect of a matter which is already subject of an earlier application by the respondent at the Court of Appeal. When the appellants application has the effect of over reaching the respondents application. h) where two actions are commenced, the second asking for a relief which may have been obtained in the first, the second action is prima facie vexacious and an abuse of court process. Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR, pt. 264, pg. 156 Oguejiofor v. Oguejiofor (2006) 3 NWLR pt. 966, pg. 205 Abubakar v. Unipetrol (2002) 8 NWLR, pt. 769, pg. 242 Plateau State v. Attorney-General of Federation (2006) 3 NWLR pt. 967, pg. 346 Dingyadi v. I.N.E.C (No. 2) (2010) 18 NWLR, pt. 1224, pg. 154. Arubo v. Aiyeleru (1993) 3 NWLR pt. 280, pg. 126 Adesanoye v. Adewole (2000) 9 NWLR, pt. 671, pg. 127 Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh and Co.  (1972) ALL NLR, pt. 2, pg. 483 Okorodudu v. Okoromadu (1977) 3 SC 21.

— O.O. Adekeye JSC. R-Benkay Nigeria Limited. V. Cadbury Nigeria Limited (SC.29/2006, 23 Mar 2012)