LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Abuse of Court Process – Later Action Raising More Issues – When Not Vexatious
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a later action raises more issues in a matter than those in an earlier action in the same matter between the same parties, both in separate courts, in order to fairly resolve which of the two courts of concurrent jurisdiction (not co-ordinate courts) should be allowed to proceed with the matter, it should not appear that the more numerous issues were not raised genuinely. They should not be seen to be raised with the intention to abuse court process or to make the action vexatious. There ought not to be found to exist mala fides in bringing the later action; that is to say, the motive behind the process by which those issues were raised must not be seen to be ulterior so as to amount to improper use or perversion of process.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwaifo, JSC, in Registered Trustees, Living Christ Mission & Ors v. Aduba & Anor (2000) NLC-1071994(SC) at pp. 7–8; Paras D–A.
"Where a later action raises more issues in a matter than those in an earlier action in the same matter between the same parties, both in separate courts, in order to fairly resolve which of the two courts of concurrent jurisdiction (not co-ordinate courts) should be allowed to proceed with the matter, it should not appear that the more numerous issues were not raised genuinely. They should not be seen to be raised with the intention to abuse court process or to make the action vexatious. There ought not to be found to exist mala fides in bringing the later action; that is to say, the motive behind the process by which those issues were raised must not be seen to be ulterior so as to amount to improper use or perversion of process."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A later action raising more issues is not automatically vexatious. The court examines whether the additional issues are genuine or raised with ulterior motive. Mala fides—improper intention—must be absent. The test is whether the later action is a genuine attempt to resolve more comprehensive disputes or an abuse to harass. If the issues are substantial and the earlier court cannot address all (e.g., jurisdictional limits), the later action may be proper. The court assesses motive and genuineness. The principle balances preventing abuse with allowing legitimate claims.