BANK PHB (PLATINUM HABIB BANK) PLC v. MR. JAMES EJEMBI OKEFE
(2014)LCN/6842(CA)
RATIO
WHETHER MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS AMOUNT TO AN ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS
With due respect to the learned senior counsel, this stance is somewhat not only novel but weird. It seems to me from the said stance that, the essential ingredients of abuse is complete, conclusive and the abuse is made out. This stance is clearly indicative of an intention to irritate, annoy and harass not only the respondent, but indeed this court by instituting a multiplicity of appeals.
I consider it apposite to bring to the fore the very sound reasoning of Karibi-Whyte, J.S.C. Rtd in the case of: NV. Scheep v. MV.S. Araz (supra) that: …the legal concept of the abuse of the judicial process or the abuse of the procedure of the court is very wide. The scope and content of the circumstances of the material facts and conduct which will result in such abuse is infinite in variety. It does not appear that the category can be closed. New unforeseen conduct from the stratagem of plaintiffs can give rise to the abuse. An abuse may be constituted through a proper and legitimate conduct in bringing actions even in the exercise of an established right in the manner or time of instituting actions. It may also be constituted by irregularities in the pursuit of actions……The abuse lies in the multiplicity of the actions rather than in the exercise of the right. See also Kotoye v. Saraki (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156. (The underlining is supplied by me for emphasis).
This is the position in the instant matter, yea, the appellant has an unalloyed right to appeal any decision of court delivered against it, but this must be within acceptable legal principles. In any event, the respondent is in the same vein entitled to not be vexed, oppressed and abused by processes of the court.
Talking further about the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, vesting in the appellant a right of appeal under its Section 241 (1)(a) it is apposite to say that, Section 6(a) of the same Constitution confers on all superior courts of record of which this Court is one, all inherent powers and sanctions of a court of law. One of such is the power to nip in the bud any litigation that is capable of causing chaos and embarrassment among litigants and consequently the courts themselves. No litigant would be allowed to portray the courts as a lame duck arbiter. In the case of: Arubo v. Aiyeleru (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 280) p. 126, the Apex court succinctly captured this point on the attitude of Superior Courts to abuse of court process thus:
Now inherent jurisdiction or power is a necessary adjunct of the powers conferred by the rules and is invoked by a court of law to ensure that the machinery of justice is duly applied and properly lubricated and not abused. One most important head of such inherent powers is abuse of process, which simply means that the process of the courts must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. (The underlining is supplied by me for emphasis)
There is no doubt in my mind that, this appeal is faulty, it is an abuse of the process of this court. The appeal must be terminated forthwith. Per OYEBISI FOLAYEMI OMOLEYE, J.C.A.
