LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Abuse of Court Process – Application to Strike Out – Principles Governing
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
In applying the principle in Nnama v. Nwanebe (supra) much circumspection is required so as to ensure first, that there is no real ploy to simply deny the court in which an action in respect of the same subject matter was earlier filed its jurisdiction to entertain it and secondly, that where more issues in a matter are raised in one court than in another court, a more convenient court should be allowed to resolve those issues in the interest of justice, more so if the power of one of the courts to entertain one or more of the issues is in doubt.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Registered Trustees, Living Christ Mission & Ors v. Aduba & Anor (2000) NLC-1071994(SC) at p. 7; Paras C–E.
"In applying the principle in Nnama v. Nwanebe (supra) much circumspection is required so as to ensure first, that there is no real ploy to simply deny the court in which an action in respect of the same subject matter was earlier filed its jurisdiction to entertain it and secondly, that where more issues in a matter are raised in one court than in another court, a more convenient court should be allowed to resolve those issues in the interest of justice, more so if the power of one of the courts to entertain one or more of the issues is in doubt."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Courts must exercise circumspection when applying abuse of process principles to strike out actions. Two key considerations: (1) whether the later action is a ploy to deny the earlier court jurisdiction, and (2) whether the court with more comprehensive jurisdiction should resolve all issues. The convenient court—able to handle all issues—should be preferred, especially if one court’s jurisdiction over some issues is doubtful. The goal is justice, not rigid adherence to first-in-time rule. The court examines substance, not mere chronology. Strike out is a drastic remedy, applied sparingly.