Background
The Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC), acting as provisional liquidator of Fortune International Bank Plc, initiated recovery proceedings in the Federal High Court, Lagos Division, over the ownership of Fortune Towers—a property sold to Cowrie Business Solutions Ltd and used as collateral for a loan from Union Bank of Nigeria Plc. After mixed rulings at trial, NDIC appealed to the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, where Cowrie contested the appeal by filing a cross-appeal and motions for extension of time. NDIC thereafter discontinued its appeal against Cowrie.
Cowrie persisted in multiple legal processes: (1) a motion in the Court of Appeal to extend time to file a cross-appeal; (2) a separate appeal in the Supreme Court (SC.CV/552/2024) seeking restoration of its name as a party in the Court of Appeal proceedings; (3) an originating summons in the Lagos State High Court challenging the Deed of Assignment relating to Fortune Towers.
NDIC moved the Supreme Court under its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss Cowrie’s appeal for abuse of court process, or alternatively, strike for want of diligent prosecution, or order accelerated hearing.
Issues
- Whether Cowrie’s Supreme Court appeal constitutes an abuse of court process by pursuing identical reliefs simultaneously in different courts.
- Whether the cross-appeal at the Court of Appeal is an independent proceeding, and if so, whether it bars a concurrent Supreme Court appeal.
- What orders the Supreme Court may make to curb misuse of its process.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles in Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) and Agwasim v. Ojichie (2004), holding that abuse of court process arises:
- When multiple actions are instituted on the same subject matter against the same opponent;
- When similar processes (e.g., a cross-appeal and respondent’s notice) are used to exercise the same right;
- When different proceedings are pursued simultaneously in separate courts with identical aims.
The Court held that Cowrie’s cross-appeal in the Court of Appeal and its Supreme Court appeal were duplicative and constituted a “gamble or game of chance” to secure a favourable outcome in at least one forum.
Court Findings
- The ongoing Court of Appeal application and the Supreme Court appeal involve the same parties, subject matter, and reliefs.
- Cowrie’s simultaneous pursuit of a cross-appeal and a Supreme Court appeal is improper, lacking bona fides and amounting to forum shopping.
- The Supreme Court has inherent jurisdiction under section 22 of the Supreme Court Act and section 6(6)(a) of the Constitution to prevent abuse of its process.
Conclusion
By a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal (SC.CV/552/2024) for abuse of process. The Court held that the Supreme Court action was a misuse of judicial resources meant to harass NDIC and Union Bank and congest court dockets. The judgment was delivered on 2025-02-10.
Significance
This decision underscores the Court’s intolerance for litigation tactics that amount to forum shopping or multiplicity of proceedings. It illustrates the Supreme Court’s power to:
- Strike out or dismiss appeals brought in abuse of process;
- Enforce judicial economy and prevent harassment of opponents;
- Ensure finality of litigation by prohibiting simultaneous parallel actions.
Practitioners are reminded to pursue discrete, bona fide proceedings and avoid duplicative filings across jurisdictions.
Judgment Date
2025-02-10