It is necessary to state that it is permissible in law to consolidate suits or applications so as to get a speedy resolution of the nagging issues and possibly remove bottlenecks or handles that might impede the main suit which would not happen where the applications and suits are to be handled separately. To get to the decision to order consolidation, the Court gets to that position satisfied that there are common questions of law or facts arising in both or all the causes or matters or even the rights to relief which are claimed in respect of or arise out of the same transactions or for some other reasons in which it makes it desirable to make an order under the rules of Court. Therefore consolidation so to speak of suits or applications is generally made for expediency and convenience such that those suits or applications having same common characteristics of law or facts or stemming from a common transaction may be heard and determined at the same time in order to avoid multiplicity of actions and to economize time and costs.
To embark on consolidation of suits or applications, the Court doing so has a bounden duty which it must discharge and that is, that each of the suits or applications must be resolved in their individual or distinct identity in that common trial. In other words, consolidation does not take away the separate identity of a particular suit or application within that grouping. Also evidence accepted in one suit or application is not evidence in any of the others. This scenario the Court must bear in mind and in sight throughout, from the beginning of the consolidation till the conclusion at the judgment stage or ruling Point. I refer to Dugbo v Kporoaro (1958) SCNLR 180; Diab Nasr v Complete Home Enterprises (Nig) Ltd (1977) 5 SC 1; Iloabuchi v Ebigbo(2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 668) 197.
It is necessary to state that it is permissible in law to consolidate suits or applications so as to get a speedy resolution of the nagging issues and possibly remove bottlenecks or handles that might impede the main suit which would not happen where the applications and suits are to be handled separately. To get to the decision to order consolidation, the Court gets to that position satisfied that there are common questions of law or facts arising in both or all the causes or matters or even the rights to relief which are claimed in respect of or arise out of the same transactions or for some other reasons in which it makes it desirable to make an order under the rules of Court. Therefore consolidation so to speak of suits or applications is generally made for expediency and convenience such that those suits or applications having same common characteristics of law or facts or stemming from a common transaction may be heard and determined at the same time in order to avoid multiplicity of actions and to economize time and costs.
To embark on consolidation of suits or applications, the Court doing so has a bounden duty which it must discharge and that is, that each of the suits or applications must be resolved in their individual or distinct identity in that common trial. In other words, consolidation does not take away the separate identity of a particular suit or application within that grouping. Also evidence accepted in one suit or application is not evidence in any of the others. This scenario the Court must bear in mind and in sight throughout, from the beginning of the consolidation till the conclusion at the judgment stage or ruling Point. I refer to Dugbo v Kporoaro (1958) SCNLR 180; Diab Nasr v Complete Home Enterprises (Nig) Ltd (1977) 5 SC 1; Iloabuchi v Ebigbo(2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 668) 197.