STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS IS OF INFINITE VARIETY

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The concept of abuse of process is imprecise and of infinite variety. However, its most common feature is in instituting multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues. The abuse lies in the multiplicity and manner of exercise of the right, rather than the exercise of the right per se. See OKORODUDU vs. OKOROMADU (1977) 3 SC 21 and SARAKI vs. KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (PT 264) 156 at 188.

— U.A. Ogakwu, JCA. General Telephone v. Asset (2017) – CA/L/336/2015

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

abuse of process

WHAT QUALIFIES AS ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

It is trite law that, abuse of Court or judicial process simply means, the use of a Court process mala fide or in bad faith to the annoyance of the opponent. One variety of it is the institution of multiferous actions between the same parties with regard to the same subject matter and same issue, in the same or another Court. See Abdu Yunusa Indabawa v. Garba Magashi & Anor (2016) LPELR 41626 (CA) and Umeh v. Inu (2008) 8 NWLR (pt. 225) at 245. A quick look at the Originating Summons in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1275/2022 will show that, same was instituted in the Federal High Court, Abuja on the 27th day of July, 2022. Being a pre election matter, it ought to have been determined within 180 days as required by Section 285(10) of the 1999 Constitution. It therefore means that it lapsed by January, 2023 about a month before the Election in question was conducted. This petition having been instituted on the 20/3/2023 when Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1215/2022 was no more alive, does not qualify as an abuse of Court process. This ground for this objection is also discountenanced.

— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. APM v INEC & Ors. (2023) – CA/PEPC/04/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

MEANING OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS

Now, the term ‘Abuse of Court process’ is often seen to be synonymous with multiplicity of suits, but though that in a way is a correct proposition of the law yet abuse of Court process is much more than mere multiplicity of suits. In other words, multiplicity of suits is not the only way by which abuse of Court process could be constituted. Simply put, and for lack of a precise or concise definition of the term ‘abuse of Court process’ denotes the improper use of the process of Court to achieve unlawful ends or the employment of the judicial process to the annoyance or irritation or injury of the person of another and thus it can safely pass as a doctrine of law without any precise or concise definition. This is rightly and arguably so because what would constitute or amount to abuse of Court process is very diverse, imprecise and thus subject to infinite or indefinite considerations.

— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. General Telephone v. Asset (2017) – CA/L/336/2015

Was this dictum helpful?

ALLEGATION OF ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS MUST BE PROVED

My lords, an allegation of abuse of Court process is a serious allegation and must be established by the person so alleging with sufficient materials before the Court before which the allegation is made. The sufficient material need not be an affidavit if on the face of the processes filed, it is obvious that the party by his own showing is guilty of abusing the process of the Court. However, where such facts are not apparent on the face of the processes filed, then it is incumbent on the party so alleging to place before the Court, mostly by way of affidavit evidence, the material is sufficient enough to warrant the finding of an abuse of Court process, failing which such an objection must fail. For a suit to constitute an abuse of Court process, though the circumstances are varied and infinite, it must be shown in what way or manner it constituted an abuse of Court process by the party so alleging. It is not such an allegation that a party would make and then fold his hands to see how the other party wriggles out of it. The law is simple and very trite he who alleges must prove what be alleges.

— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. General Telephone v. Asset (2017) – CA/L/336/2015

Was this dictum helpful?

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

Was this dictum helpful?

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

THE CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF JUDICIAL PROCESS IS IMPRECISE

The concept of abuse of Judicial Process has been held to be imprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite varieties and conditions. It’s one common feature is the improper use of the Judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of Justice. 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 effectual 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. Thus, the multiplicity of actions on 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. See the case of:- -Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR part 264 page 156.

— J.O. Bada, JCA. Conoil v Vitol (2011) – CA/A/213/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.