"In other words, I am of the considered view that if the concept of abuse of Court process were restricted to the filing of multiple processes before different Courts, for the same or similar reliefs, the issue of abuse of Court process the Respondent raised by some of the depositions in its counter affidavit would have fizzled into nothingness inasmuch as the motion before the lower Court had been struck out by that Court on 6/4/2017 before the instant motion was filed in this Court on 8/6/2017.
However, the concept of abuse of Court process is not restricted to the filing of multiple processes before different Courts for the same or similar reliefs. See in this regard the case of OGOEJEOFO V OGOEJEOFO (2006) 1 SC (Pt. I) 157 wherein the Supreme Court per Mahmud Mohammed, JSC; (as he then was) said thus: "xxxxxMy task in resolving the only issue for determination in this appeal is first to ascertain what constitutes an abuse of the process of Court and secondly, to determine within the confine of the evidence adduced by the appellant in the affidavit in support of her preliminary objection, whether or not a case of abuse of the process of Court had been made out to justify the striking out of the respondent's suit against the appellant.
The questions of what actually constitutes and what does not constitute an abuse of the process of Court have been considered and answered by this Court in several of its decisions. One of the leading cases on this subject in which Karibi-Whyte, JSC reviewed several earlier decision (sic) of this Court is the case of Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.264) 156 at 188-189 where he said: - "The concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. Its 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 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. xxxx 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, initiate 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. xxxxxxx Similarly so held was where two similar processes were used in respect of the exercise of the same right. Namely a cross-appeal, and a respondent's notice. xxxxx This Court has also held as an abuse of the process, an application for adjournment by a party to an action to bring an application to Court for leave to raise issues of fact already decided by Courts below........" In Okafor v. A.-G., Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 659 at 681, Karibi-Whyte, JSC again said on the same subject: -
"It is the law that multiplicity of actions on the same matter may constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. But this is so only where the action is between the same parties with respect to the same subject matter."
Other cases defining what amounts to an abuse of the process of Court or judicial process include Doma v. Adamu (1999) 4 NWLR (Pt. 598) 311; Benaplastic v. Vasilyev (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 624) 620; A.-G., Ondo State v. A.-G., Ekiti State (2001) 17 NWLR (Pt. 743) 706 at 771 and African Reinsurance Corporation v. JDP Construction Nigeria Ltd. (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 609 at 635-636. However this Court recently in Mobil Production Nigeria Unlimited v. Monokpo (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt.852) 346 at 430-431, held that filing of two motions which do not necessarily seek the same or similar reliefs, though in the same case between the same parties would not amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. xxxxxxx."
Per LOKULOSODIPE, J.C.A.IN AGHOMI v. STATE CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43991(CA)
