ERASTUS OKOROMADU & ANOR VS THE STATE
(1975) LCN/1990(SC)
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Friday, December 12, 1975
Case Number: SC. 426/1974
RATIO
DUTY OF COURTS TO PREVENT MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN SAME PARTIES ON SAME ISSUES
“In addition to its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings which are clearly an abuse of its process, the court below has a duty under Section 16 of the High Court Law, 1964, the Laws of the Midwestern State of Nigeria, 1964 to prevent multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties on the same subject matter.” PER BELLO J.S.C.
NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF ACTION
“Having found that the notice had been filed after the date fixed for hearing of the case, the learned Judge ought to have held the notice of discontinuance invalid. That was the view taken in Barclay Davit Co. Ltd. v. Samuel Taylor & Sons Ltd. (1946) 2 All ER 41 where pursuant to Order 26 Rule 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England,1875, now repealed, and which was in similar terms to the relevant rule, a notice of discontinuance was given after the case had reached a stage that the plaintiff could not discontinue without leave of the court. In that case order of discontinuance was made with the consent of the parties. In the case in hand the notice being invalid, the proper order to make was to strike out the notice and call upon the plaintiffs to proceed with their case as pleaded.” PER BELLO J.S.C.
JUSTICES:
COKER JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SOWEMIMO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBEKWE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
APPELLANTS
ERASTUS MERENGBEYI OKOROMADULONDON OPI A. OKOTETE
RESPONDENTS
THE STATE
SOWEMIMO, JSC. (Delivering the Judgment by the Court)
The two appellants in this suit were convicted for contempt act arising out of their action during the hearing of a civil matter in Suit No. W/115/69 by Atake J., in the High Court of the Mid-Western State at Warri on 5/11/73. Each appellant was sentenced to a term of six months imprisonment. The appeals were heard on 20/2/75 and dismissed. It was indicated that the reasons for the dismissals will be given later. The civil suit mentioned above came before the lower court on 5/11/73. Mr. Anigboro, learned counsel, appeared for one of the two appellants who was the 1st defendant in the case. Mr. Akpojaro appeared as counsel for the 2nd appellant who was the 5th defendant. In spite of the legal representations of the two appellants, they personally conducted themselves in a manner that constituted the worst acts of contempt on the face of the court. The 1st appellant even pointed his finger at the face of the judge on the bench.
The learned judge in spite of this outrageous actions of the two appellants nevertheless explained to each of them their right to show cause why he (the judge) should not commit them for contempt and whether they wished to give such explanation in the witness box or the dock. Instead of explaining their reasons both of them repeated the contemptuous words. The Judge was left with no alternative than to commit the appellants. Their counsel, Messrs. Anigboro and Akpojaro, for reasons best known to them, did not intervene in the ugly episode which took place in their presence, either on behalf of their clients or as officers of court. On appeal before us, apart from referring us to identical grounds of appeal filed, and the relevant proceedings, nothing was canvassed before us as justifying the substance of the grounds of appeal. In this situation, this court decided not to call on Mr. Gbemudu the learned Director of Public Prosecutions of the respondent, to reply. We have had occasion in a judgment of the Full Court to draw attention to the duty of the court before which a contempt had been committed. We do not wish to comment on the circumstances which led to these incidents, the subject matter of the appeals before us. We hope however that this will be the end of the regrettable relationship between the bench and the bar in the Mid-Western State. As earlier on stated we dismissed the appeals at the hearing and we herein record our reasons for so doing.
(Sgd.) G.S. Sowemimo, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.
