Introduction
The Nigerian judiciary, as the custodian of justice and the rule of law, is constitutionally empowered to ensure that justice is administered fairly, impartially, and within a reasonable timeframe. Although there are other means of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) but the court system remains the only institution with the most coercive power to administer justice and enforce its decisions.
However, persistent and undue delays in court proceedings have significantly hindered the effective delivery of justice. Undue delay in court proceedings is not merely a procedural lapse. It constitutes an abuse of court process. Abuse of court process refers to the improper use of judicial machinery to harass, irritate, or obstruct the administration of justice.
There is a growing concern against any delay conduct of a party to a suit and there are now grave consequences under most of our Court Rules. For instance, by virtue of Order 12 Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules 2024, the Supreme Court can now award ₦2,000,000 or above as cost for abuse of court process which must be paid by the party or else he/she will lose the right of audience before any other court of record in Nigeria.
The decision in Chidoka v. First City Finance Ltd. (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1346) 144, underscores the judiciary’s intolerance for procedural abuse and delay tactics. In Eze v. F.R.N (2017) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1589) 433 at 478, paras. C–D, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a stern warning that:
“Any person who unduly and deliberately delays the proceedings of the court will have himself to blame if the court takes any adverse decision against him based on such unnecessary delay.”
To better understand the courts’ view on undue delay, we elucidate in a question and answer format the position of the Court on unduly delaying the proceedings of the Court as follows:
What can amount to undue delay of court proceedings resulting in abuse of court process?
The focus of the abuse here is on that which is occasioned during the pendency of a suit. In Saraki v. Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 @ p.188, paras. D-E, the Supreme Court held that: “The concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite variety and conditions. But a common feature of it is the improper use of the judicial process by a party in litigation to interfere with the due administration of justice”.
Undue delay refers to any intentional or negligent act by a party or counsel that prolongs litigation beyond what is reasonably necessary. A delay is undue if it is unwarranted or inappropriate or excessive or disproportionate.
In Nwosu v. PDP (2018) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1640) 532, the Supreme Court held that where a party uses court processes to delay or frustrate proceedings, such conduct amounts to an abuse that warrants judicial sanction, including dismissal of the action. This includes:
(a) Frivolous interlocutory applications: Filing all kinds of irrelevant and unnecessary applications with the intention to delay is an abuse of court process. The prayers and grounds of an application usually betray the intentions of the applicant and abuse is also evident where such frivolous application is eventually withdrawn or abandoned by the applicant. The Court of Appeal case of Obiesie v. Obiesie (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1060) 223 @ p. 230, para. H held as follows: “Frivolous applications tend to make the wheel of justice move at a snail speed, and does not make the process of law dynamic in a growing society.”
(b) Repeated requests for adjournments: Adjournment of cases is subject to a maximum limit under most Court Rules and may attract court-awarded costs. It is an abuse of court process to seek adjournment of case just to delay proceedings of the court. In Abena v. Obi (2004) 10 NWLR (Pt. 881) 319 P. 348, paras. B-D where the Court of Appeal held as follows: “There must be an end to litigation and particularly when such litigations are based on election petitions, of which time is of the essence in their consideration by the court. In the instant case, where it appeared to the court that the appellant was taking it for granted as he failed to respect his earlier undertaking to brief another counsel after the withdrawal of his former counsel, it would amount to a blatant abuse of the process of adjournment to further indulge the appellant with another adjournment after he had been given about twenty days to brief another counsel”
(c) Failure to file processes within stipulated timelines: Unless where cogent reasons are given, delay in. filing court process within the time stipulated by the Rules of Court is an abuse if the delay is avoidable and unexplainable. The Supreme Court in the case of Moore v. Flour Mills (Nig.) Plc (2022) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1841) 365 p. 392 paras F – H upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal when it held that the failure to file a court process with the stipulated timeline is an overdue delay.
(d) Absence of parties or their legal representatives: If a matter is adjourned in the open court with the presence of parties or their counsel, failure to appear on the next adjourned date is an unacceptable practice unless cogent reasons are profered by the absenting party or counsel. Absence of parties or their counsel in the foregoing circumstances can be an abuse of court process is punishable with an award of cost and can b a ground for striking out the case or foreclosure of the guilty party’s right. See Abena v. Obi (Supra).
(e) Use of appeals as a tactical tool to stall proceedings: There are certain interlocutory decisions which do not completely determine the issues in contention between the parties to a dispute. Rather than contest the matters on the merits, some parties may file interlocutory appeals against the interlocutory decisions to stall the continued hearing of the case at the trial court. The Court of Appeal in Seriki v. Aduralere (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1020) 127 P. 146, paras. D-E held that “It is not right to use the instrumentality of interlocutory applications to cause unnecessary delay in dispensation of justice. In the instant case, if the applicants had exercised some patience and allowed the case at the trial court to be concluded, they could appeal against the main decision and raise, simultaneously, the interlocutory matter.”
(f) Filing Multiple Applications in the Same Suit: This is when a party uses duplicative or overlapping applications to stall proceedings or confuse the court. In Lokpobiri v. Ogola (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1499) 328, the Supreme Court held that deploying similar processes (e.g. cross-appeal and respondent’s notice) for the same relief is prima facie vexatious. The issues may be different if the first application is incompetent or the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain it.
(g) Any other Improper Conduct to Delay Proceedings: The court may find that the conduct of a party or lawyer is improper and causing unwarranted delay to the progress of the court’s proceedings. Such conduct may be deemed as an abuse of court process.
What are the consequences of Undue Delay as an abuse of court process?
(a) Adverse Judicial Decisions
Courts have consistently held that litigants who deliberately delay proceedings may suffer adverse consequences. In Eze v. F.R.N (Supra), the Supreme Court held that the court is empowered to proceed and determine matters even in the absence of the defaulting party where the absence is calculated to deliberately delay the progress of the case.
(b) Denial of Fair Hearing
Ironically, delay tactics often backfire. Once a party is given ample opportunity to be heard but fails to utilize it, he or she cannot later claim that he was denied of fair hearing. A defendant or respondent who delibraly absents from court proceedings despite having knowledge of the proceedings may be foreclosed on his right to defend the case. See Ogunsanya v. State (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1261) 401.
(c) Striking Out or Dismissal of Cases
Courts may strike out or dismiss cases for want of diligent prosecution. This is particularly common in civil matters where plaintiffs or Claimant fails to take necessary steps to move their cases forward.
(d) Erosion of Public Confidence
Delay in justice delivery erodes public trust in the judiciary. As the adage goes, justice delayed is justice denied. Prolonged litigation discourages investment, fosters impunity, and may lead to resort to self-help.
(e) Increased Cost and Emotional Strain
Litigants bear the financial and psychological burden of prolonged litigation. Legal fees, transportation, and time lost in court appearances can be overwhelming, especially for indigent parties.
What are the Other recognised forms of abuse of court process?
Beyond undue delay of pending proceedings, the Nigerian courts have identified several other forms of abuse of court process. These include:
- Multiplicity of Actions: Filing multiple suits on the same subject matter between the same parties, either simultaneously or successively, is a classic abuse. See Saraki v. Kotoye (supra).
- Forum Shopping: This is when a party deliberately filing the same or similar suits in different courts to obtain a favourable judgment. In Okafor v. A.G. Anambra State (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt. 200) 659, the Court of Appeal condemned the practice of seeking out sympathetic forums as a manipulation of judicial process.
- Filing of Frivolous or Vexatious Actions: Instituting suits that are baseless, lacking in merit, or intended to annoy the opposing party is an abuse of Court process. See Amaefule v. The State (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 75) 156.
- Re-litigation of Decided Matters (Res Judicata): Filing a fresh suit on a matter already adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction. In Arubo v. Aiyeleru (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 280) 126, the Supreme Court held that re-litigating settled issues is an abuse and undermines the finality of judgments.
- Improper Use of Court Orders: Using court orders obtained ex parte or through misrepresentation to oppress the other party. In CBN v. Ahmed (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 724) 369, the Supreme Court held that it is an abuse where a party uses a court order to freeze bank accounts of other persons without full disclosure of the material facts.
- Filing an action without legal basis: Instituting an action that has no foundation in law or is incompetent. We refer to the case of Idoko v. Ogbeikwu (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 819) 275 P. 288, paras. G-H where the Court of Appeal held that “a suit may be said to be frivolous if it has no legal basis or where it is filed often to harass or extort money from the defendant. It is a corollary to a vexatious suit which is a suit instituted maliciously and without good cause.”
Why Counsel and their Clients Must Avoid Delay of Proceedings
The Supreme Court’s decision in Eze v. F.R.N (Supra) is a clarion call to litigants and counsel alike that the courtroom is not a playground for delay tactics. The judiciary is committed to ensuring that justice is not only done but done promptly and visibly. Undue delays are recognised abuse of court process that courts are empowered to punish. Such practices erode the integrity of the judicial process and breach the constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time under Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended). Thus, when a party engages in tactics such as frivolous applications, repeated adjournments, or failure to comply with procedural timelines, they are not only delaying justice, they are undermining the integrity of the judicial process. Parties must approach litigation with diligence, sincerity, and respect for judicial time. Where they fail, they must be prepared to face the consequences to be imposed on them and their counsel by the Court.
