Abuse of Court's Process

The circumstances which will give rise to abuse of court process include:-
a) Instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues on multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to begin the action.
b) Instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different courts, even though on different grounds.
c) Where two similar processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right for example a cross-appeal and a respondent's notice.
d) Where an application for adjournment is sought by a party to an action to bring an application to court for leave to raise issues of fact already decided by the lower court.
e) Where there is no law supporting a court process or where it is premised on frivolity or recklessness
f) Where a party has adopted the system of forum-shopping in the enforcement of a conceived right.
g) It is an abuse of court process for an appellant to file an application at the trial court in respect of a matter which is already subject of an earlier application by the respondent at the Court of Appeal. When the appellants application has the effect of over reaching the respondents application.
h) where two actions are commenced, the second asking for a relief which may have been obtained in the first, the second action is prima facie vexacious and an abuse of court process.

R-BENKAY NIGERIA LIMITED V. CADBURY NIGERIA LIMITED LGC(/23/3/2012)I

this Court on abuse of Court process held:
"...the employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient and effective administration of justice. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of action on the same subject matter against the some opponent on the some issue....
...From the pronouncement of this Court reproduced above, to constitute abuse of Court process, the multiplicity of suit must have been instituted by one person against his opponent on the same set of facts.

R-BENKAY NIGERIA LIMITED V. CADBURY NIGERIA LIMITED LGC(/23/3/2012)G

My understanding of the law on abuse of Court process is that, it refers to multiplicity of actions between the same parties on the same subject matter which may arise when a party improperly uses judicial process aimed at irritating, annoying and/or harassing his opponent not only in respect of the same subject matter, but also in respect of the same issues in the other action or actions. See Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (pt.264) 156: Okafor v. AG Anambra State (1999) 6 NWLR (pt.200) 659 at 681.

STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC V. LONGTERM GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED &

There is abuse of process when a party uses the issue of judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of the other party and in the process disrupts the smooth administration of justice. A proceeding that is frivolous or oppressive is an abuse of process, e.g. filing multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue. See Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt.264) p.156. Agwasim v. Ojichie (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt.882) p.613; Okorodudu v. Okoromadu (1997) 3 SC p.21.

STANBIC IBTC BANK PLC V. LONGTERM GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED &

The concept of abuse of Court process is the avoidance of multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter by the same parties, in the same Court or different Courts. Miss Ifeyinwa Ogoejeofo v. Daniel Chiejina Ogoejeofo(2006) 1 S.C.N.J, 69 at 80; Dingyadi v. Independent National Electoral Commission (2010) 11 SCNJ (pt. 1) 1 at 27; Lokpobiri v. Ogola (2015)11 SCNJ 71.
In Agwasim v. Ojichie & Anor(2004) 10 N.W.LR. (pt. 882) 613 at 624, the erudite jurist, Niki Tobi, J.S.C., had cautioned that:
A litigant has no right to pursue pari pasu two processes which will have the same effect in two Courts at the same time with a view of obtaining victory in one of the processes or in both. Litigation is not a game of chess where players outsmart themselves by dexterity of purpose and traps.

Abuse of Courts process is a concept which is imprecise. But a common feature of it is improper use of judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice. It includes instituting a multiplication of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponents on the same issues; instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different Courts even though on different grounds; where two similar processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right, for example a cross-appeal and a respondents notice; where two actions are commenced, the second asking for a relief which may have been obtained in the first, the second action is prima facie vexation and constitutes an abuse of Court process. SARAKI V KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (PT.264) 156. LOKPOBIRI V OGOLA (2016) 3 NWLR Pt. (1499) 329 at 367 368 Paras e b.

It would amount to an abuse of process when a party uses the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent, thereby tarnishing the administration of justice in the process. This would occur where party institutes a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue. Where two actions are filed one after the other and both actions are asking for a relief common to both of them, the second action is clearly vexatious and calculated to irritate and annoy the adversary.
Where a party goes forum shopping hoping to achieve a conceived right.
So once the action is between the same parties, their allies, on the same subject matter even if differently worded but with the same result the suit filed later in time is an abuse of process and is liable to be struck out.Once the intention for filing the suit is found to be mala fide, it is an abuse of process.

This Court has succinctly enunciated in NTUKS VS NPA (2007) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1051) page 392 on the meaning of abuse of Court process and held that: "Abuse of Court process generally means that a party in litigation takes a most irregular, unusual and precipitates action in the judicial process for the sake of action qua litigation, merely to waste valuable litigation time. It is an action which could be avoided by the party without doing any harm to the matter in dispute. The process of the Court is used merely to overreach the adversary to the direct annoyance of the Court. The Court process is initiated with malice or in some premeditated or organized vendetta, aimed at frustrating either the quick disposal of the matter or the abatement of the matter for no good cause. The Court process could also be said to be abused where there is no iota of law supporting it. In other words, the Court process is premised or founded on frivolity or recklessness." Per Tobi, J.S.C." Furthermore, in CHIEF VICTOR UMEH & ANOR VS PROFESSOR MAURICE IWU & ORS (2008) Vol. 41 WRN 1 at 18 lines 5-10 (SC) this Court enunciated on what abuse of process connotes and attitude of Courts to suit filed in abuse of process thus: "It is settled law that generally, abuse of process contemplates multiplicity of suits between the same parties in regard to the same subject matter and on the same issue. See OGOEJEOFO V. OGOEJEOFO (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 996) 205 and OKAFOR VS ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF ANAMBRA STATE (2001) 7 WRN 77; (2001) FWLR (Pt.58) 1127; (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 659; (1991) 9-10 SCNJ 107. The bottom line of these authorities in regard to abuse of process is that, to institute an action during the pendency of another suit claiming the same relief is an abuse of Court process and the only course open to the Court is to put an end to the suit "Per Chukwuma Eneh and Onnoghen, JSC." OYEYEMI(RTD) & ORS V. OWEYE...

It would amount to an abuse of process when a party uses the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent, thereby tarnishing the administration of justice in the process. This would occur where party institutes a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue. Where two actions are filed one after the other and both actions are asking for a relief common to both of them, the second action is clearly vexatious and calculated to irritate and annoy the adversary Where a party goes forum shopping hoping to achieve a conceived right.So once the action is between the same parties, their allies, on the same subject matter even if differently worded but with the same result the suit filed later in time is an abuse of process and is liable to be struck out.Once the intention for filing the suit is found to be mala fide, it is an abuse of process.The Originating processes in suits Nos.
1. FHC/L/CS/613/2016
2. FHC/L/CS/637/2016
3. FCT/HC/CV/1443/2016,

Whenever it is alleged that a matter filed in Court is an abuse of Court process, it centres on an improper use of judicial process by a party in litigation aimed at or targeting an interference with due administration of justice. Some of the features of abuse of Court process would certainly include the following, though not exhaustive. These include:
1. Filing of multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponents on the same issues or numerous actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there is in existence, a right to commence the action.
2. Instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different Courts even though on different grounds.
3. Where two or more similar processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right, for instance, a cross appeal and a respondent's notice.
4. Where two actions are instituted in Court, the second one asking for relief which may however be obtained in the first, the second action is prima facie vexations and an abuse of Court Process.
See Chief B. A. Allanah & Ors v Mr. Kanayo Kpolokwu & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40724 (SC), Okorocha v PDP (2014) 7 NWLR (pt 4406) 213, Ogoejiofor v Ogoejiofor (2006) 3 NWLR (pt 996) 206, Oyeyemi & Ors v Owoyeye & Ors (2017) LPELR – 41903 (SC).

PML (NIGERIA)

It is trite that sentiments has no place in judicial deliberations – Kalu V. FRN (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 1. The Appellant was never charged or tried at the trial Courts, and there is nothing to indicate that the Respondent or EFCC made improper use of any legitimately issued Court process to obtain a result that is unlawfuI or beyond the scope of the said process, which is the definition of abuse of process in Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. So, there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the concurrent decisions of the Court of Appeal and the trial Court – FHC Benin, which are, in my view sound decisions.

PML (NIGERIA)

As to the last defence – abuse of Court process, it is well settled that the term has an element of malice in it – see Amaefule V State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt 75)156 SC, wherein Oputa, JSC explained that-
To amount to an abuse of process, the proceeding or step in the proceeding complained of, will, in any event, be lacking in bona fides; it has to be an improper use or perversion of process after it had been issued. The term abuse of process has an element of malice in it. It thus has to be a malicious perversion of a regularly issued process civil or criminal, for a purpose, and to obtain a result not lawfully warranted or properly attainable thereby.

PML (NIGERIA)

There may be a situation where there exist multiple transactions between the same parties. Such multiple transactions between the same parties may, often times, give rise to multiple causes of action. Each cause of action, in that situation, gives rise to a distinct right of action. The exercise of such right of action in such a situation between the same parties can not be said to be multiplicity of actions between the same parties in respect of the same cause of action to warrant a plea of abuse of Court's process. Where, therefore, there exists a pending suit on a cause of action different and distinct from another in a subsequent suit between the same parties, the existence or pendency of the previous suit on an entirely different cause of action between the same parties does not make or constitute the subsequent suit an abuse of the Court's process. Rather, what makes the subsequent suit an abuse of the process of Court is the institution of a fresh action between the same parties and on the same subject-matter against the same opponent on the same issues when the previous suit has not yet been disposed of. See OKAFOR V. A.G. ANAMBRA STATE (supra); MORGAN v. WEST AFRICAN AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING CO. LTD. (1971) 1 NMLR 219; OKOROMADU V. OKOROMADU (1977) 3 SC. 21; OYEGBOLA V. ESSO WEST AFRICAN INC (1996) 1 ALL NLR. 170.

Abuse of Court's process manifests in a variety of situations and/or circumstances. There is however a common feature: that is, an improper use of judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice. See SARAKI v. KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (pt.264) 156; ARUBO v. AIYELERU (1993) 24 NSCC (pt.1) 255; CBN v. AHMED (2000) 11 NWLR (pt.724) 369.
This Court in Okafor v. A.G. Anambra State (1991) 3 NWLR (pt. 200) 659, per Karibi-Whyte, JSC at page 681 stated that "an abuse of process of the Court is only possible by improper use of the issue to the irritation and annoyance of the opponent" and that "multiplicity of actions on the same matter may constitute an abuse of process of the Court. His Lordship however adds emphatically that "this is so only where the action is between the same parties with respect to the same subject matter".

In effect what I am laboring all the while to put across is that the circumstances under which the concept of abuse of Court process can be invoked are far from the current circumstances. It is not enough to say that an appellant or applicant has filed two or more appeals or applications as the case may be, the opponent must take a further step to establish that the appeals or motions fall within the definition of abuse of Court process, that is that the conditions on which the concept is said to apply are in existence. If those conditions earlier stated which must go together none expecting do not exist then the abuse is not proved and the process cannot be said to be an abuse of Court process. That in my humble view is what is in place here as the applicants have failed to establish the abuse in the filing of the appeal which they seek to have struck out or dismissed which appeal stands independent of any other and has the right to be heard by this Court. See Society BIC SA & Ors v. Charzin Ind. Ltd (2014) LPELR SC; Arin v. Chaka (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt. 734) 612 at 620.

Placing these facts in context, it is settled that in the matter of abuse of Court process, it is the later action that constitutes an abuse of Court process and for sure, this application falls off the mark. See Ukachukwu v. PDP(2013) LPELR; Dingyadi v. INEC (NO. 2) (2011) 18 NLWR (pt. 1224) 154.

Clearly the conditions under which an abuse is said to apply are not present. The conditions are such that they must co-exist and they are thus:-
1. There must be in existence a multiplicity of actions.
2. The parties in the said action must be the same.
3. The subject matter and issues in the actions must be the same.
All these conditions the applicants have not established. See Ayanru v. Mandilas Ltd (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 462 at 485. Ume v. Iwu (2008) 8 NWLR (pt. 1089) 225 at 243; Ogoejeofor v. Ogoejeofor (2006) 3 NWLR (PT 966) 205 at 22-221; Okafor v. A.G. Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (PT 200) 659 at 681.

The abhorrent nature of an abuse of Court process has made the Courts, the Supreme Court not an exception to deplore in very strong terms the invidious situation that is thrown up when the Court process is abused especially by multiplicity of suits. Therefore abuse of process connotes that the process of the Court has not been used bonafide and properly. Another way of stating the position is that the common denominator in the concept of abuse of process is the improper use of the judicial process in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice. It is in the wrongful deployment of the machinery of justice to the annoyance and irritation of the opponent by the institution of multiple and divergent suits/proceedings over the same subject matter. I place reliance on C.B.N. v. Ahmed (2000) 11 NWLR (pt. 724) 369; Arubo v. Aiyeleru (1993) 24 NSCC (pt. 1) 255 at 265; Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (pt. 264) 156 at 188-189 and the more recent case of A.G. Anambra State v. UBA (2005) 15 NWLR (pt.947) 41.

What is abuse of Court process? The applicants did say that such instances vary, citingA.G. Anambra State V. UBA (2015) 15 NWLR (pt. 974) 44, where this Court explained that –
"The concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. Its one common feature is the improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice. It is also recognized that the abuse of process may lie in both a proper and improper use of the judicial process in litigation. But the employment of judicial process is only regarded as an abuse when a party improperly uses the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent, and the efficient and effective administrative justice."
They also cited CBN V. AHMED (2000) 11 NWLR (PT 724) 369; Arubo v. Aiyeleru (1993) 24 NSCC (Pt.1) 255 and Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 where Karibi -Whyte, JSC stated that the common denominator with the concept of abuse of Court process "is the improper use of the judicial process in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice."

Generally, abuse of process involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions and which may be occasioned by malice, bias and desire to misuse or pervert the system of administration of justice. See SARAKI VS KOTOYE (1992) NWLR (Pt. 264) at 156.

However, it must be pointed out at once that on the reverse side of the requirement of service of hearing notice is the ugly reality of it being subject to abuse by parties, particularly those who may cling to it as a right and become lackadaisical in the prosecution or defense of their cases. Thus, where a party or his counsel was in Court on the sitting of a Court and the case was adjourned to another further date, it will be incongruous for such a party to insist on service of hearing notice on him should he or his counsel fail to appear in Court on the next adjourned date.
In law, a party who fails to take or make use of the opportunity given to him to present his case cannot be heard or allowed to complain of a denial of fair hearing. See Uhembe V. Parkes (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1395) 475. See also Mirchandani V. Pinheiro (2001) FWLR (Pt. 48) 1307) AT Pp. 1318 -1320, Kaduna Textiles Ltd V. Umar (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 319) 143, Ajaokuta Steel Co Nig Ltd V. Biosali & Co Nig Ltd (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 527) 145, Eastern Breweries Plc V. Nwokoro (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1321) 488.
It follows therefore, that since all parties ought to be informed of when a matter in which they are involved and pending before the Court is due to be called up and or be heard, all parties to a proceeding are entitled as of right to be served with all the Court processes, including hearing notices from day to day. This is so important that any dereliction in this regard is bound to vitiate the entire proceedings no matter how well conducted. See Apeh V. PDP (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1510) 153 AT p. 177. PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

However, it must be pointed out at once that on the reverse side of the requirement of service of hearing notice is the ugly reality of it being subject to abuse by parties, particularly those who may cling to it as a right and become lackadaisical in the prosecution or defense of their cases. Thus, where a party or his counsel was in Court on the sitting of a Court and the case was adjourned to another further date, it will be incongruous for such a party to insist on service of hearing notice on him should he or his counsel fail to appear in Court on the next adjourned date.
In law, a party who fails to take or make use of the opportunity given to him to present his case cannot be heard or allowed to complain of a denial of fair hearing. See Uhembe V. Parkes (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1395) 475. See also Mirchandani V. Pinheiro (2001) FWLR (Pt. 48) 1307) AT Pp. 1318 -1320, Kaduna Textiles Ltd V. Umar (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 319) 143, Ajaokuta Steel Co Nig Ltd V. Biosali & Co Nig Ltd (1997) 11 NWLR (Pt. 527) 145, Eastern Breweries Plc V. Nwokoro (2012) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1321) 488.
It follows therefore, that since all parties ought to be informed of when a matter in which they are involved and pending before the Court is due to be called up and or be heard, all parties to a proceeding are entitled as of right to be served with all the Court processes, including hearing notices from day to day. This is so important that any dereliction in this regard is bound to vitiate the entire proceedings no matter how well conducted. See Apeh V. PDP (2016) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1510) 153 AT p. 177. PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

The position of the law which has been handed down by the apex Court is that abuse of process is the improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation. It may occur in various ways, predominantly demonstrated by the institution of multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter between the same parties. Another incidence is the institution of actions by same parties simultaneously in different Courts even though on different grounds, where the two similar processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right in order to achieve the same goal.
See the cases of IKINE & ORS Vs. EDJERODE & ORS (2001) LPELR-1479 (SC); ASHEY AGWASIM & ANOR Vs. DAVID OJICHIE & ANOR (2004) 18 NSCQR 359 at 36. Put simply, abuse of Court process entails the usage of the process of the Court mala fide and improperly, and in most cases, to the annoyance and irritation of another party.
Therefore, where it is found that two or more actions have been commenced before a competent Court on the same subject matter and the parties in the two suits are the same, the only inference that will be drawn is that the intention, purpose and bringing the suit before the Court, which is later in time, is to harass, irritate and annoy the other party against whom the suit was commenced; and also interfere with the administration of justice. PER KOLAWOLE, J.CA.

Abuse of the process of the Court is described thus by the apex Court in the case of CPC & ANOR v. OMBUGADU & ANOR (2013) LPELR 21007(SC) per Nguta, JSC as he then was: “The legal concept of the abuse of the judicial process or the abuse of the proceedings of the Court is very wide. It is of infinite variety and it does not appear that the category can be closed … only a process filed in Court can constitute abuse of Court process”. This Court in the case of HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLC V.
ECOBANK 2019 LPELR-47503 CA also described abuse of the process of the Court as follows per Georgewell, JCA thus: “Now, the term abuse of Court process is often seen to be synonymous with multiplicity of suits, but though that in a way is a correct proposition of the law, yet abuse of Court process is much more than mere multiplicity of suits. In other words, multiplicity of suits is not the only way by which abuse of Court process could be constituted.
Simply put, and for lack of a precise or concise definition, the term abuse of Court process denotes the improper use of the process of Court to achieve unlawful ends or the employment of the judicial process to the annoyance or irritation or injury of the person of another and thus it can safely pass as a doctrine of law without any precise or concise definition.
This is rightly and arguably so because what would constitute or amount to abuse of Court process is very diverse, imprecise and thus subject to infinite or indefinite considerations.” It is also explained in the case of OGBORU & ANOR v. UDUAGHAN & ORS 2013 LPELR-20805 SC as follows: “It involves an improper use of judicial process by a party in litigation, see Agwasim V. Ojichie (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 882) 613 at 624-625. Furthermore, the concept is also characterized as an action initiated without a just or reasonable cause.
It merely takes an undue advantage of the reason that the process is available for indulgence. It is also a situation where the law is wrongly interpreted for purpose of accommodating actions in bad faith. It impugns the dignity of the Court. Further still, and in the legal parlance, the phrase “abuse of judicial process” is generally employed when a party improperly uses to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent the efficient and effective administration of justice.
An example is where a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter are instituted against the same opponents on the same issues. ” PER WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A. WHETHER OR NOT AN AN ACTION FOUND ON ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS WILL BE DISMISSED
That being the position, the law is firm that once a matter is found to be an abuse of the process of the Court, it qualifies for that reason, to be dismissed. One therefore cannot but agree with the Court when it dismissed the Appellant’s matter and made no pronouncement on the Appellant’s application for mandatory injunction. PER WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.

In law, an abuse of Court process simply put, and for lack of a precise definition, denotes the improper use of the process of Court to achieve unlawful ends or the employment of the judicial process to the annoyance or irritation or injury of the person of another and thus it can safely pass as a doctrine of law without any precise definition. See Dana Airlines Limited V. Mrs. Grace Eventus Mbong & Ors (2017) LPELR- 43052 (CA) per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA. See also Dana Airlines Ltd V. Yusuf & Ors (2017) LPELR 43051 (CA) per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA.
However, some guidelines were laid down by the apex Court in Saraki V. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 AT p. 188, where the Supreme Court had opined inter alia thus: “The concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions…It is recognized that the abuse of the process may be in both a proper or improper use of the judicial process in litigation.
But the employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient and effective administration of justice.” See also Ziklagsis Network Ltd V. Adebiyi & Ors (2017) LPELR- 42899 (CA), per Sir Biobele Abraham Georgewill JCA, Dalhatu V. Turaki (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 843) 310, Mailantarki V. Tongo & Ors (2018) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1614) 69. PER GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

The concept of abuse of Court process takes different forms and it is imprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. But a common feature of abuse of Court process is the improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice. One of such circumstance is where a Court process is premised on frivolity or recklessness. See generally, the cases of SARAKI VS. KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 264) PG. 156; OKOROMADU VS. OKOROMADU (1977) 3 SC 21; OYEGBOLA VS.
ESSO WEST AFRICA INC. (1966) 1 ALL NLR 170; ARUBO VS. AIYELERU (1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 280) PG. 126 and OGOEJEOFO VS. OGOEJEOFO (2006) 3 NWLR (PT. 966) PG. 205. PER IDRIS, J.C.A.

​It is an abuse of Court process where as in the instant appeal a party initiates, institutes and prosecutes two or more similar processes on the same subject matter seeking the same or similar relief at the same time and without staying or drawing one or more of the actions. See TORIOLA & ORS V. WILLIAMS (1982) NSCC 187 AT 189. The subsequent action(s) which constitute(s) the abuse is/are liable to be appropriately punished with a dismissal, see DINGYADI & ANR V. INEC & ORS (2011) LPELR – 950 (SC). PER WAMBAI, JC.A.

The applicant acted reasonably by bringing this application to commence afresh the process of satisfying the conditions precedent to a valid appeal. It is a bona fide and legitimate exercise of his constitutional right of appeal. No law prohibits such application. There is nothing to show that the application is mala fide or is an improper or vexatious use of a legal process. As held by this Court per Oputa, JSC in Amaefule & Anor v.
The State (1988) LPELR – 450 (SC) “Abuse of process of Court is a term generally applied to a proceeding which is wanting in bona fides and is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Abuse of process can also mean abuse of legal procedure or improper use of legal process…. The term abuse of process has an element of malice in it. It thus has to be a malicious perversion of a regularly issued process, civil or criminal, for a purpose, and to obtain a result not lawfully warranted or properly attainable thereby…” See also Attahiru v. Bagudu (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 543) 636 at 658 and Saraki v.
Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156. PER EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM, J.S.C.

Abuse of Court process consist of the intention, purpose and aim of the person exercising the right to harass, irritate and annoy the adversary and interfere with the administration of justice, such as instituting actions between the same parties simultaneously in different Courts even though on different grounds. An abuse of Court process may lie in both a proper and improper use of judicial process in litigation.
The employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient and effective administration of justice, this will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to institute an action is regarded as an abuse. The abuse lies in the multiplicity and manner of the exercise of the right parse – PER JAMES GAMBO ABUNDAGA, J.C.A.

A process of Court filed, which has no backing of the law is regarded as an abuse of Court process. See JIMOH v. STARCO NIG. LTD (1998) 7 NWLR (pt. 558) 522 (CA) at 535 – 536, AKINTUNDE v. OJO (2002) 4 NWLR (pt. 757) 284 (CA) at 302. PER EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C

On the concept of abuse of Court process, a long line of judicial authorities has explained it since the concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise and involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues. See SARAKI V KOTOYE (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 264) 156 at 188. See: OKORODUDU VS OKOROMADU (1977) 3 SC 21; OYEGBOLA VS ESSO WEST AFRICA (1966) 1 ALL NLR 170.
It follows that, the multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter between the same parties even where exist a right to bring the actions is regarded as an abuse. PER PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

The term abuse of process of a Court is a term generally applied to a proceeding which is wanting in bona fides and is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. Abuse of process can only mean the abuse of legal procedure or the improper use or misuse of the legal process. See AMAEFULE vs. THE STATE (1988) 2 NWLR (PT 75) 156 at 177. The Court under its inherent jurisdiction or power has the duty to ensure that the machinery of justice is duly lubricated and that it is not abused.
Abuse of process simply means that the process of Court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused: ARUBO vs. AIYELERU (1993) 3 NWLR (PT 280) 126 at 142. In SARAKI vs. KOTOYE (supra) at 188 Karibi-Whyte, JSC stated: “The concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. It is one common feature is the improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice.
It is recognised that the abuse of the process may lie in both a proper or improper use of the judicial process in litigation. But the employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent, and the efficient and effective administration of justice. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against same opponent on the same issues. See OKORODUDU vs. OKOROMADU (1977) 3 SC 21; OYEGBOLA vs.
ESSO WEST AFRICA INC. (1966) 1 ALL NLR 170. Thus, the multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to bring the action is regarded as an abuse. The abuse lies in the multiplicity and manner of the exercise of the right, rather than the exercise of the right, per se”. (Emphasis supplied) See also the cases of OKAFOR vs. A-G (1991) 6 NWLR (PT 200) 659 at 681; CBN vs. AHMED (2001) 28 WRN 38 at 60-61 and MOGAJI vs. NEPA (2003) 8 WRN 42 at 53. As stated by Edozie, JSC in AGWASIM vs.
OJICHIE (2004) 18 NSCQR (PT 1) 359 at 367: “It is trite law that the abuse of judicial process is the improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation. It may occur in various ways, such as instituting a multiplicity of action on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue or a multiplicity of action on the same matter between the same parties.
It also occurs by instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different Courts even though on different grounds, where two similar processes are used in exercise of the same right…” PER OGAKWU, J.C.A.

While it is inherent in the power of a Court to put an end to an action which is an abuse of process, the Court must exercise its power judicially and judiciously and with great circumspection: FASAKIN FOODS NIG CO. LTD vs. SHOSANYA (2003) 17 NWLR (PT 849) 237 at 247-248. The Appellant’s contention that the Respondents’ action is an abuse of process is based on multiplicity of actions. Let me restate that evidence was not adduced before the lower Court so the previous actions from which the parties, issues and subject matter could be gleaned are not in evidence.
I am not in oblivescence of the averments in the Respondents’ Statement of Claim which the Appellant referred to. It is rudimentary law that pleaded facts do not constitute evidence: AJUWON vs. AKANNI (1993) LPELR (311) 1 at 20, ELEGUSHI vs. OSENI (2005) LPELR (1111) 1 at 28 and EYIGEBE vs. IYAJI (2013) LPELR (20522) 1 at 16. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence establishing the multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues, conventional wisdom dictates circumspection in holding that this matter is an abuse of process.
I am therefore unable to agree with the Appellant, in the absence of relevant and appropriate evidence, that the Respondents’ action is an abuse of Court process. PER OGAKWU, J.C.A.