LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Consolidation of Suits – Circumstances Militating Against Consolidation
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Consolidation will also be refused where it would likely cause embarrassment at the trial such as where the actions are by different plaintiffs, based on the same libel, and the defences are different. Also it is the law that two actions cannot be consolidated where the plaintiff in one action is the defendant in the other action unless it is possible to order that one action should stand as a counter claim or third party proceedings in the other.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in Iloabuchi v. Ebigbo & Anor (2000) NLC-1061994(SC) at p. 17; Paras A–C.
"Consolidation will also be refused where it would likely cause embarrassment at the trial such as where the actions are by different plaintiffs, based on the same libel, and the defences are different. Also it is the law that two actions cannot be consolidated where the plaintiff in one action is the defendant in the other action unless it is possible to order that one action should stand as a counter claim or third party proceedings in the other."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Consolidation may be refused where it would cause embarrassment or confusion. Examples include actions by different plaintiffs against the same defendant with differing defences, or where the plaintiff in one action is the defendant in another—creating role confusion. In such cases, consolidation would not serve efficiency but would complicate proceedings. The proper course is to treat one action as a counterclaim or third-party proceeding. Consolidation is a discretionary remedy; courts will not order it where it would prejudice parties or impede clear adjudication.