LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Jurisdiction — Courts of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction — Court Should Refuse to Entertain Application Seeking Order in Conflict with Subsisting Order of Another Court of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a federal court is prayed to make an order in conflict with a subsisting order of a state high court on the same subject matter, it should refuse to entertain it and may advise that the parties transfer the matter first filed to its own court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Pats-Acholonu, JSC, in Nigeria Intercontinental Merchant Bank Ltd. v. Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. & Ors (2004) NLC-2462000(SC) at pp. 9–10; Paras E–A.
"Where a Federal Court is prayed to make an order that is diametrically or in conflict with a subsisting order of a State High Court in the context of the same subject matter and where equally identical or seeming identical prayers are sought, it should, in my view refuse to entertain it and may advise that the parties transfer the matter first filed or instituted in the State High Court to its own court particularly in an area where it may even possess wider jurisdiction than the State High Court due to the subject matter."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A court should not entertain an application seeking orders conflicting with a subsisting order of another co-ordinate court. The principle applies to all courts. The rule prevents judicial anarchy. The court may suggest transfer of the earlier matter. The principle is well-established.