Disable Preloader

CaseLaw

Attahiru V. Bagudu (1998) CLR 3(g) (CA)

Brief

  • Abuse of court process
  • Abuse of judicial process
  • Reliefs
  • Speculation
  • Locus standi

Facts

The appellant was the plaintiff at the trial. He instituted this action on the 18th January, 1996 against the respondents as defendants in the High Court of Niger State Minna, claiming the following reliefs:-

  • 1
    "A Declaration that the purported nomination and or selection of the 1st defendant as the new Emir of Agaie by the 2nd – 8th defendants on or about 29/12/95 at Agaie on the advice, prompting and or instructions of the 10th defendant and the subsequent approval of the said purported nomination and or selection by the 9th defendant whilst Suit No. NSHC/MN/192/94 filed by the plaintiff against the 9th defendant and another challenging his purported removal as the Emir of Agaie was and is still pending before the High Court, Niger State, is hasty, illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, oppressive and of no effect whatsoever.
  • 2
    A Declaration that the purported appointment of the 1st defendant as the new Emir of Agaie by the 9th defendant under and or by virtue of a letter of appointment from the office of the Military Administrator, Niger State Government of Nigeria whilst Suit No. NHSC/MN/192/94 was and is still pending before the High Court, Niger State is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, unconstitutional, oppressive, null and void.
  • 3
    Injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves or through their servants, agents, privies, representatives or otherwise howsoever from giving effect to, or taking any step or steps in the purported nomination, selection and or appointment of the 1st defendant as the Emir of Agaie pending the determination of this Matter.”

The appellant filed a 14-paragraph Statement of Claim on the same day the action was filed. On the 30th of January 1996, the appellant also filed a motion praying the trial Court for an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/respondent as the new Emir of Agaie pending the determination of the action. The motion was fixed for hearing on 15th February 1996 but before that date, precisely on the 8th of February 1996, the learned counsel for the 1st to 8th defendants/respondents filed a motion objecting to the hearing of this action on the grounds that:-

  • a
    the action is an abuse of court process; and
  • b
    the plaintiff/appellant lacks the locus standi to commence the action.

And on the 14th of February 1996, learned counsel for the 9th and 10th defendants/respondents also filed a motion on notice by way of preliminary objection on points of law, challenging the jurisdiction and competence of the trial court to entertain the plaintiff/appellant’s action.

On the 15th of February 1996, when the motion of the plaintiff/appellant came up for hearing, the learned trial Judge decided that the two motions filed by the learned counsel for the 1st to 8th and 9th to 10th defendants/respondents be taken first as they challenged the competence of the action and the jurisdiction of the trial court. Consequently, the learned trial Judge heard full arguments on the motions from the learned counsel for the parties and adjourned for a ruling. In a considered ruling delivered on the 12th day of March 1996, the learned trial Judge, Evuti J. found that the plaintiff/appellant’s action was an abuse of the court process and that by virtue of the provision of Section 3 of Decree No. 17 of 1984, he had concluding his ruling on pp.42-43 of the record, the learned trial Judge said:-

“The plaintiff suit shall be dismissed not only because it amounted to an abuse of court process but because this court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit is ousted by section 3 of Decree 17 of 1984. This court is incompetent to entertain the suit. The plaintiff’s suit is ordered dismissed”.

The plaintiff/appellant was dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court and with the leave of the learned trial Judge, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  • 1
    Was the lower court right to hold that Suit No. NSHC/MN/22/96 was an...
    • Read More