LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Same Issues in Different Courts – Principle in Thames Launches Ltd. v. Trinity House
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
If there are two courts which are faced with substantially the same question, it is desirable to be sure that that question is debated in only one of those two courts, if by that means justice can be done... If there were two proceedings going on in court 'A' and court 'B', the proceedings in court 'A' relating to a number of questions, only one of which was raised in the proceedings in court 'B', and was the only question raised in that court, that would be a very strong argument for saying that the convenient course would be to allow that question to be dealt with in the proceedings in court 'A' which would dispose of the matter raised in the proceedings in court 'B', whereas if the reverse course were taken the same would not apply.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Buckley, J. in Thames Launches Ltd. v. Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond [1961] 1 All E.R. 26 at 32, cited with approval by Uwaifo, JSC, in Registered Trustees, Living Christ Mission & Ors v. Aduba & Anor (2000) NLC-1071994(SC) at p. 6; Paras B–D.
"If there are two courts which are faced with substantially the same question, it is desirable to be sure that that question is debated in only one of those two courts, if by that means justice can be done... If there were two proceedings going on in court 'A' and court 'B', the proceedings in court 'A' relating to a number of questions, only one of which was raised in the proceedings in court 'B', and was the only question raised in that court, that would be a very strong argument for saying that the convenient course would be to allow that question to be dealt with in the proceedings in court 'A' which would dispose of the matter raised in the proceedings in court 'B', whereas if the reverse course were taken the same would not apply."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When two courts face substantially the same question, it should be debated in only one court if justice permits. If Court A has multiple issues including the sole issue in Court B, it is convenient for Court A to resolve that issue—disposing of Court B’s case entirely. The reverse (Court B resolving only one issue while Court A proceeds on many) is inefficient. This principle encourages efficient judicial administration, avoiding duplication and inconsistent judgments. The court with broader jurisdiction should resolve the common issue. The goal is finality and judicial economy.