This was an interlocutory appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Judicial Division. The 3rd and 4th Respondents herein commenced the main action (as Plaintiffs) in a suit filed against the 1st and 2nd Respondents (Defendants) to seek jointly the following reliefs:
-
1
A declaration that pursuant to Article 18(i) of the Constitution of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (4th Respondent), the 3rd Respondent (1st Plaintiff) has, is entitled to and enjoys a constitutionally guaranteed chairmanship of the Party for an initial 4 year term commencing from 10th January, 2003 till 10th January, 2007, which term at the time of the institution of the action is still unexpired and which is also renewable at the option of the third Respondent.
-
2
A declaration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents (Defendants at the trial Court) lack the competence under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999; the Electoral Act, 2002 and the Constitution of the 4th Respondent to interfere in any manner whatsoever with the position of the 1st Plaintiff (3rd Respondent) as the National Chairman of the 2nd Plaintiff (4th Respondent) and also lacks the power to change or attempt to change the leadership of the 4th Respondent which is a registered political party.
-
3
A declaration that the provision of the Electoral Act, 2002 does not empower the Defendants herein as the 1st and 2nd Respondents to confer recognition on any other person as the National Chairman or Acting National Chairman of the 2nd Plaintiff contrary to the provisions of the second Plaintiff's constitution.
-
4
A declaration that the Defendants are not entitled to ignore and cannot ignore the List of Names and Addresses of the national officers of the political party registered with them.
-
5
An injunction restraining the Defendants from recognizing or continuing to recognize or deal with the leadership of the 2nd Plaintiff except with the 1st Plaintiff as guaranteed by the 2nd Plaintiff's Constitution.
By an application filed in the course of proceedings, the Appellants applied to be joined as parties to the suit and the trial Court so ordered. They were then joined as 3rd and 4th Defendants. However, in a related action, suit No. FCT/HC/CV/278/2005, the 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs/Respondents herein had jointly with one Dr. Hassan Bello and Barrister Maxi Okwo, as Plaintiffs, sued the Appellants and thirteen others at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs:
-
i
A declaration that the Defendants are no longer members or national officers of the first Plaintiff.
-
ii
A declaration that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs are duly and onlythe National Chairman, Deputy National Chairman (North) and Deputy National Chairman (South) respectively of the 1st Plaintiff.
-
iii
A declaration that the 1st Defendant is not the National Chairman of the 1st Plaintiff.
-
iv
An injunction restraining the 1st to the 11th Defendants from parading themselves as national officers of the 1st Plaintiff.
-
v
An injunction restraining the 1st to the 14th Defendants from parading themselves as members of the 1st Plaintiff.
-
vi
A declaration nullifying the purported suspension or expulsion of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs from the 1st Plaintiff."
The two cases (that is FCT/HC/CV/278/2005 and FHC/ABJ/CS/478/2005) formed the crux of the dispute between the parties, but there was another suit related to the same dispute, to wit: Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/346/2005. The latter was filed on 29/6/2005 by the 3rd and 4th Respondents herein, as Plaintiffs, against the 1st and 2nd Respondents to seek a number of declaratory and injunctive reliefs. In suit No. FCT/HC/CV/278/2005, the 3rd and 4th Defendants/Respondents in this suit were joined as 15th and 16th Defendants. However, by a notice of discontinuance, the names of the said 15th and 16th Defendants were removed without affecting the subject matter and character of the suit. After withdrawing against the 15th and 16th Defendants in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/278/2005, the 3rd and 4th Respondents, as Plaintiffs, filed yet another suit No.FHC/ABJ/CS/346/2005 and, again, against the Island 2nd Defendants/Respondents herein. This suit as per the record has been struck out as an abuse of process by Nyako J. There is no appeal against this decision. Rather the 3rd and 4th Plaintiffs/Respondents have filed the instant action i.e. FCH/ABJ/CS/478/2005. Chief Victor Umeh and Alhaji Sani Shinkafi (the Appellants) herein by the order of the trial Court have been joined as 3rd and 4th Defendants to the aforesaid suit.
The facts in brief, are as follows: the land in dispute formerly formed part of the land owned by one Aige, a Yoruba man and native of or an indigene of Ikorodu, Lagos State under customary law or native law and custom. On his death intestate, the property devolved on his children as family property. At some time later, the family decided to partition the family property at Aige family and allotted the land in dispute to one of the descendants of Aige by name Chief T.K. Dada. After his death, the family conveyed by deed of grant the said parcel of land to:
-
a
In suit No. FCT/HC/CV/278/05 All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA) and 3 Ors v. Chic/Victor Umeh & 3 Ors, the Defendants are same Defendants in the suit before the High Court of the FCT Abuja.
-
b
The subject matter of Suit N. FCT/HC/CV/278/2005 referred above, pending before the High Court of the FCT, Abuja is on all fours with the subject matter of this present suit.
-
c
Suit No, FCT/HC/CV/278/05 referred to above is part-heard, the Plaintiffs having closed their case, the suit is adjourned for the conclusion of defence witness.
-
d
Consequently, the present suit constitutes a gross abuse of process and the Honourable Court is without jurisdiction to entertain same."
The trial Court heard the parties' respective submissions on the application and, in a considered ruling, dismissed the application as follows:
-
"In the instant case two cases had hitherto been filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants but these cases from the evidence before the Court were discontinued before this present action was filed. The situation where a party will file an action and discontinue and refile in a situation such as has manifested in this case is not in any manner tantamount to an abuse. There is no disclosed intention as a fact before the Court to use the process of Court improperly in the annoyance of the Defendants. I therefore hold that there is no abuse of process in this case. The objection is therefore dismissed."
Aggrieved by the decision, the Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal dated 30/10/2006. After hearing, the same was dismissed by the Court of Appeal which held that it could not identify any multiplicity of action or abuse of the judicial process in the case between the parties. The Appellants appealed further to the Supreme Court.
