Supreme Court and Recalcitrant Litigants

The N60 million fine imposed by the Supreme Court on the factional National Chairman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance, Edozie Njoku and his group is commendable but may not be enough deterrent to recalcitrant litigants who take delight in moving from one courtroom to the other with vexatious applications to seek a review of determined cases. Davidson Iriekpen writes that higher fines should be imposed on litigants who defy the apex court’s admonition that “there must be an end to litigation.”

Recently, the Supreme Court fined the factional National Chairman of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), Edozie Njoku and his group the sum of N60 million for judicial obduracy.

Njoku and Sylvester Ezeokenwa had been embroiled in leadership tussles, with both men claiming to be the authentic National Chairman of the party and inundating the court with suits, counter-suits and applications since 2021.

But the apex court, in laying to rest the protracted leadership dispute, affirmed Ezeokenwa as the authentic National Chairman of the party.

In two unanimous judgments, a five-member panel of the apex court held that Njoku was wrongly laying claim to APGA’s chairmanship. 

The apex court held that its earlier judgement on the appeal marked: SC/CV/687/2021, delivered on October 14, 2021, which was corrected on March 24, 2023, did not confer on him any enforceable rights.

Justice Stephen Adah, who read the lead judgement, held that, in the 2021 judgement, only declaratory reliefs were granted, which were not executory. He also held that there was no order or orders in the 2021 judgement to be executed.

The judge emphasised that in the earlier judgment, the court had specifically ruled that matters concerning party leadership, including who becomes the chairman of a political party, were internal and not subject to judicial review.

 He further noted that it was improper for Njoku to approach a lower court to enforce a judgment that had no basis for enforcement, as no executory reliefs were granted.

Justice Adah used the opportunity of the case to urge judges of the lower courts to be cautious, adding that the judges of the trial court and the Court of Appeal, who declared Njoku Chairman of APGA were wrong to have heard the suit. 

He proceeded to set aside the judgement delivered by the Court of Appeal in Abuja on June 28, 2024, affirming the judgement of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which had declared Njoku Chairman of APGA.

The court consequently awarded N20 million on each appeal against two members of the Njoku faction (who are listed as first and second respondents), bringing the total cost awarded in the three appeals to N60 million.

Though the apex court had always emphasised that there must be an end to litigation, litigants and their lawyers have always disregarded the admonitions, indulging in forum shopping because they have money to throw around.

On a number of occasions, they have approached the apex court and other courts to relitigate or seek a review of determined cases. Sometimes, after the apex court had delivered judgment in a case, aggrieved parties still approach the Federal High Court or state High Court to relitigate the same case for further determination.

This is why many analysts have asked the apex court to henceforth slam higher fines on obdurate and recalcitrant litigants who take delight in moving from one courtroom to the other across the country to either relitigate or seek a review of determined cases.

The last time the apex court had imposed fines on Nigerians for filing frivolous suits was in February 2020 when it summarily dismissed the application for the review of the governorship tussle in Bayelsa State.

The court consequently fined two eminent lawyers, Chief Afe Babalola  (SAN) and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), N30million, for filing what it called frivolous and vexatious applications.

The court excoriated the two senior lawyers for daring to apply for a review of its February 13, 2020 judgment that nullified the victory of David Lyon of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the governorship election in Bayelsa State. An emotional Justice Amina Augie, who delivered the lead judgement, described the action of Babalola and Olanipekun as regrettable and a deliberate desecration of the judiciary.

“There must be an end to every litigation. It is settled that the decision of this court is final,” Justice Augie had stated in an emotion-laden voice. 

In the ruling that lasted about 30 minutes, Justice Augie ordered the senior lawyers to pay N10 million each to each of the three respondents as a fine.

In 2019, the same apex court while delivering judgement in the application filed by the Abdulaziz Yari faction of the APC seeking a review of its judgment in the intra-party dispute in the Zamfara State, slammed a total of N280 million on them.

On May 24, 2019, the court sacked the Yari faction of the APC for not conducting valid primaries preparatory to the general election. It then voided the party’s victory in the elections and made a consequential order, directing the party with the second-highest scores in the election, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), to claim the victory, by taking over all the elective positions in both the executive and legislative arms of government in the state.

But dissatisfied with the apex court’s judgment, they filed an application, through their lawyer, Chief Robert Clarke (SAN), asking the apex court to “review, amend, correct and/or set aside the consequential orders” contained in the judgment. While arguing the application on March 17, 2020, Clarke prayed the court to review the consequential order on the grounds that it was wrongly made.

In a majority judgment, four members of a five-member panel, led by the then Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Tanko Muhammad, dismissed the application on the grounds that it was without merit.

Justice Inyang Okoro, in the lead judgment, held that the application was vexatious and gross abuse of the process of the court.

Justice Okoro consequently awarded the cost of N2 million against the appellant to be paid to the 1st -140th respondents, totalling N280 million.

Since the enthronement of democracy, the Supreme Court has remained steadfast in its determination against reviewing its judgments whenever an application to that effect is brought before it by politicians.

 From the cases filed by Andy Uba, Celestine Omehia, Great Ogboru, and Emeka Ihedioha to David Lyon, the Supreme Court has refused to review its judgment.

In some cases, the court verbally reprimanded the applicants for daring to bring such applications. On other occasions, it fined senior lawyers for not properly guiding and advising their clients.

To ensure an end to litigation, the apex court should henceforth slam prohibitive fines on recalcitrant litigants and their lawyers.