CASE TITLE: JIGNA FARMS LTD v. UBN PLC & ANOR (2026) LPELR-84423(SC)
JUDGMENT DATE: 5TH JUNE, 2026
PRACTICE AREA: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
LEAD JUDGMENT: JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY, J.S.C.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Abuse of Court Process.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the decision of the Court of Appeal sitting at Abuja.
The Appellant, as Plaintiff at the trial Court, commenced an action against the Respondents, wherein it sought declaratory reliefs in respect of an N20,000,000 (Twenty Million Naira) loan facility approved in favour of the Plaintiff, order of Court compelling the Respondents, award of damages and perpetual injunction.
Upon being served, the 1st and 2nd Respondents as Defendants before the trial Court, challenged the jurisdiction of the trial Court by way of Preliminary Objections on the grounds the Plaintiff’s suit constitute an abuse of Court process.
Upon considering the Preliminary objections filed by the respective Respondents and the Counter Affidavit filed by the Appellant, the trial Court found merit in the objection of the 1st Respondent and upheld same, holding that the suit constituted an abuse of Court process. Having so held, the trial Court declined jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant’s suit. It also proceeded to strike out the Preliminary Objection filed by the 2nd Respondent on the basis of the dismissal of the suit.
Dissatisfied by the dismissal of its suit, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal, complaining on five grounds, following which it urged the Court to set aside the decision of the trial Court. Respective Briefs of Arguments were filed and parties were heard thereupon. In a considered judgment, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lacking in merit and affirmed the decision of the trial Court.
Aggrieved by that decision and still dissatisfied, the Appellant has further filed this appeal at the Supreme Court.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Appeal was determined on a sole issue viz:
“Whether the Court below was right to have affirmed the decision of the trial Court which held that the facts, parties and issues in controversy in the previous Suit No. CV/773/2010 were the same as those in the latter Suit No. CV/2304/13, thereby concluding that the latter case constituted an abuse of Court process.”
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ABUSE OF COURT/JUDICIAL PROCESS(ES): Whether multiplicity of actions over the same subject matter and between the same parties constitutes abuse of Court process
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ABUSE OF COURT/JUDICIAL PROCESS(ES): Instance(s) when abuse of court process will arise; proper order to be made when same arise
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ABUSE OF COURT/JUDICIAL PROCESS(ES): What constitutes abuse of Court process; instance(s) when a suit will be held to constitute an abuse of Court process and attitude of Court to same
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ABUSE OF COURT/JUDICIAL PROCESS(ES): Meaning and nature of the concept of abuse of Court/judicial process; instance(s) of abuse of court/judicial processes
- PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- ABUSE OF COURT/JUDICIAL PROCESS(ES): Power/duty of the Court to dismiss an action/proceeding that constitutes an abuse of Court process
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
