Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT OWERRI BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE Dated: February 11, 2015 SUIT NO. NICN/PHC/109/2014 Between 1. Mr. Bashir A. Akinola 2. Alhaji Sabitu A. Giwa 3. Mallam Bala M. Hassan 1st set of Claimants/Respondents 4. Princess Esther O. Ogunbanjo 5. Alhaji Ashiru S. Barmo 6. Mr. Sunday Enang (Suing as Registered Trustees of Keke Owners and Riders Association of Nigeria) And 1. Mr. John Ademola 2. Mr. Samuel Vidoh 3. Mr. Dickson Nyemaichukwu 2nd set of Claimants/Respondents (Suing as representatives of Keke Owners and Riders Association of Nigeria, Rivers State Chapter) And 1. Road Transport Employers Association of Nigeria - 1st set of Defendants/Respondents 2. International Human Rights Protective Initiative - 2nd set of Defendants/ Respondents 3. Keke Napep Drivers Association of Nigeria - 3rd set of Defendants/Respondents 4. Association of Tricycle and Motor cycle operators - 4th set of Defendants/Applicants 5. Rivers State Transport Cooperative Union Limited - 5th set of Defendants/Respondents 6. Keke Drivers Association - 6th set of Defendants/Respondents Representation Gobari Deebon with Promise Opara for the Claimants/Respondents B. C. Omeje for 1st set of Defendants /Respondents E. F. Nwachu for the 3rd set of Defendants/Respondents Mark-Nath E. Ahiakwo for the 4th set of Defendants/Respondents E. C. Nwandikon for the 6th set of Defendants/Applicants D. I. Nzute with C. S. Ugwu (Miss) for the 5th Defendant/Respondent RULING The claimant took up a complaint dated and filed on the 9th day of May 2014 claiming against the defendants as follows – (1) A declaration that the defendants have no locus to interfere in the operation of tricyclists and their activities either by way of regulation or organization of the Keke Owners an Riders Association of Nigeria (KORAN). (2) A declaration that the Claimants’ Association (KORAN) is an Association of Keke Owners and Riders in relation to tricycles only. (3) A declaration that the Keke Owners and Riders Association is the only body authorized by both the Federal and State Governments in Nigeria to Unionize and organize Keke Owners and Riders under the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP). (4) A declaration that the operation of Keke Napep (tricycles) and membership of Keke Owners and Riders Association are not affected by the Provisions of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 2005 which makes membership of a trade union voluntary. (5) A declaration that the attempt by the defendants to hijack the members of the Claimants’ Association in Rivers State using various names is unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. (6) A declaration that the intimidation harassment, threats etc of the Claimants’ members in Rivers State by the defendants in whatever guise is unlawful and illegal. (7) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, privies or whomsoever from harassing, intimidating, unionizing or hijactking the members of the Keke owners and Riders Association as their members. By a preliminary objection dated and filed on the 20th day of June 2014 and brought pursuant to Order 11 Rules 1(1) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, the 4th set of Defendants/Applicants pray this Court for and order striking out or dismissing this suit as against the 4th set of Defendants herein on the ground that same amounts to an abuse of the process of this Court. In support of the application is an affidavit of 10 paragraphs upon which they placed reliance. It is the submission of learned Counsel for the applicants that the Applicants in this suit have already been sued by the National Union of Road Transport Workers in Suit No. NICN/PHC/115/2013 on behalf of the Claimants in this suit, (particularly the 2nd set of Claimants) seeking similar reliefs against same 4th set of Defendants/Applicants in this suit. He stated further that during the pendency of this suit No. NICN/PHC/115/2013 in this same court, National Industrial Court, the claimants (particularly the 2nd set of claimants who are an affiliate of the claimants in suit No. NICN/PHC/115/2013 also filed this present suit and joined the same 4th set of Defendants/Applicants as parties to this present suit, hence, this preliminary objection is brought on behalf of the 4th set of Defendants/Applicants to strike out and/or dismiss this suit as far as it relates to the 4th set of Defendants/Applicants as same constitutes an abuse of the process of this Court. The sole issue formulated by Counsel for the applicant as being germane for the consideration of this Court for the purposes of this application is: “Whether in law, the act of filing this suit as against the 4th set of Defendants/Applicants seeking similar reliefs as in suit No. NICN/PHC/115/2013 which is also against the same parties being the 4th set of Defendants herein, does not amount to an abuse of court process which ought to be struck out and/or dismissed by this Hon. Court”. In canvassing the sole issue stated above, Counsel urged the Court to take an analytical look at the reliefs sought in suit No. NICN/PHC/115/2013 and the reliefs sought in this present suit, and to note the fact that the aim of the two suits which the 4th set of Defendants herein feature as Defendants in both suits, is basically to restrain the Applicants herein from operating as an association of tricycle owners/operators within Rivers State. Exhibit “AMA2” clearly shows that the Claimants in suit No. NICN/PHC/115/2013 are also part of the Claimants herein by virtue of the affiliation which exists between them. Counsel for the applicant remarked that what clearly constitutes the abuse in the filing of the process in this is as much the fact that the suit No. NICN/PHC/115/2013 is still subsisting in this same court, as well as the fact that an abuse of court process is reprehensively unacceptable in law no matter the basis upon which the abuse is occasioned. It is on this ground of the unacceptability of abuse of court processes that the courts in a plethora of cases, have vehemently frowned against the occasioning of such abuses. In the case of OGOEJEOFO vs. OGOEJEOFO (2006) All F.W.L.R. Part 301, p. 1792 @ 1797 ratio 6, the apex court was held thus: “An abuse of court process can occur where two similar processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right.” In ratio 4 of same OGOEJEOFO case (supra) the same Supreme Court held that: “The concept of abuse of judicial process is imprecise. It involves circumstances and situations of infinite varieties and conditions. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter, against the same opponent on the same issues. The multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to bring the action is regarded as an abuse. The abuse consists in the intention, purpose and aim of the person exercising the right to harass, irritate and annoy the adversary and interfere with the administration of justice; such as instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different courts even though on different grounds. Please see also ADELEKE vs. OYO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY (2006) All FWLR part 319 p. 862 @ 864 ratio 2”. It was the submission of the applicants that where an abuse of court process has been occasioned as in the circumstances of this case, the proper order to make is to DISMISS the action. Your learned elder brothers upheld this same submission when in the case of BADRU vs. OLORUNFEMI (2000) Al FWLR Part 324 p. 1867 @ 1871 it was held that: “When abuse of court process is found, the proper order is dismissal as done in the instant case by the trial court.” Similarly, the court has also held in CHRISTIAN OUTREACH MINISTRIES INC. vs. COBHAM (2006) All FWLR Part 310 Pg. 1675 @ 1678 ratio 4 that: “A court has inherent jurisdiction to terminate proceedings before it at any stage where it is apparent that such proceedings are incompetent, manifestly vexatious or scandalous. Thus, as in the instant case, any argument that a party should file a statement of claim before a court can dismiss the suit on the ground of abuse of court process is misconceived”. The court held further in CHRISTIAN OUTREACH MINISTRIES NIC. vs. COBHAM (supra) ratio 5 that: “Once a court is satisfied that any proceeding before it is an abuse of process it has the power, indeed the duty to dismiss it and not merely to strike it out, in other words, where the court comes to the conclusion that its process is abused, the proper order is that of dismissal of the process”. Counsel strongly urged the Court to uphold the applicant’s submissions and dismiss the action of the Respondents as it clearly amounts to an abuse of court process; especially when the Supreme Court has severally held that: “No one has a substantive or vested right to bring or continue proceedings which are an abuse of the process of the court; and this abuse the courts have inherent power of their own to check procedurally”. He therefore urged the Court to resolve the sole issue proposed in the applicant’s address in favour of the Applicants. Counsel submitted that the act of the respondents amounts to a gross abuse of the process of this court and should be dismissed with a punitive cost of N250,000.00. He went further that courts have severally held as in the case of LABARAN vs. KALSHINGI (2006) ALL FWLR (Pt. 292) Pg. 65 @ 68 ratio 6 that: “There is abuse of process of court where the process of the court has not been used bonafide and properly. The circumstances in which abuse of court process can arise include the following: (i) Instituting a multiplicity of action on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues or multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties even where there exists a right to begin that action. (ii) Instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different courts even though on different grounds. (iii) Where two processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right. (iv) Where an application for adjournment is sought by a party to an action to bring an application to court for leave to raise issues of fact already decided by courts below. (v) Where there is no iota of law supporting a court process or where it is premised on frivolity or inequities involved in the aims and purposes of the action. This issue of abuse of court process obviously bothers on the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this suit as against the 4th set of defendants/applicants. Counsel further submitted citing the Supreme Court case of OFIA vs. EJEM (2006) 11 NWLR (Pt. 992) P. 652 @ 663, that it is settled law that where an action is not competent or properly constituted, it robs the court of the requisite jurisdiction to entertain same and the issue of jurisdiction ought to be accorded paramount consideration in the proceedings. It is in circumstances like this that apex court held in the case of A-G ANAMBRA STATE vs. OKEKE (2002) 12 NWLR (pt. 782) page 575 @ 594 ratio 23 that: “A court is not only entitled but bound to put an end to proceedings if at any stage and by any means it becomes manifest that it is incompetent. It can do so of its own initiative, even though the parties have consented to the irregularity because mere acquiescence does not give jurisdiction….” Counsel therefore urged this Court to uphold the applicants’ submissions and dismiss the respondents’ application with cost. The Claimants/Respondents on the 9th day of July 2014, in opposition to the said motion have filed a counter affidavit of 14 paragraphs as well as EXHIBITS “A” AND “B” upon which Counsel placed reliance; along with a written address. According to Counsel, the 1st and 2nd set of Claimants/Respondents instituted this present suit No: NICN/PHC/109/2014: MR. BASHIR A. AKINOLA & ORS. vs. ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA & ORS on the 9th day of May, 2014. The 4th set of Defendant/Applicant upon being served with the processes in this suit, filed a notice of preliminary objection that this suit is an abuse of judicial process of this court having been filed during the pendency of suit NO: NICN PHC/115/2013: CHIEF MONDAY ELEAZER (JP) & ANOR vs. MR. OBULOR ONWUGBONU & ORS. The Claimants/Respondents, following the complaint, statement of facts, in suit No: NICN/PHC/109/2014: MR. BASHIR A. AKINOLA & ORS. vs. ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA & ORS and the complaint, statement of facts in suit NO: NICN PHC/115/2013: CHIEF MONDAY ELEAZER (JP) & ANOR VS. MR. OBULOR ONWUGBONU & ORS, including all the legal principles governing lack of jurisdiction and the abuse of judicial process, proposed the following three issues for the determination of this Court namely: (a) Whether the claimants/respondents are parties to purported suit No: NICN PHC/115/2013: CHIEF MONDAY ELEAZER (JP) & ANOR vs. MR. OBULOR ONWUGBONU & ORS. (b) Whether this suit is an abuse of the judicial process of this court. (c) Whether the purported suit NO: NICN PHC/115/2013: CHIEF MONDAY ELEAZER (JP) & ANOR vs. MR. OBULOR ONWUGBONU & ORS is a competent process before this court. On issue one; it is the Claimants’ contention, referring the Court to the case of BELLO vs. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 2 ORS (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1196) 342 @ 352 ratio 3, that “a party to an action is a person whose name is designated on record as Plaintiff or Defendant. The term party refers to person(s) by or against whom a legal suit is brought whether a natural or legal person. All other persons who may be affected by the suit indirectly or consequently are persons interested and not parties as in this instant case.” According to Counsel for the respondents, the posers that beg for answers in this application are: (a) Whether the 1st and 2nd set of Claimants/Respondents in Suit No: NICN/PHC/109/2014 are parties in Suit No: NICN/PHC/115/2013. (b) If they are not parties, will any decision, judgment, order or ruling of the court sitting in Calabar be binding on them? If the answers are in the affirmative, can it be said that Suit No: NICN/PHC/109/2014 instituted by the Claimants/Respondents is an abuse of judicial process of this court? It is Counsel’s submission in answer to the above posers that the 1st and 2nd sets of Claimants/Respondents are not parties to Suit No: NICN/PHC/115/2013 as instituted by the 4th set of defendant/applicant, as the subject matter as well as the reliefs are different. The claimants/respondents have not been served with any of the processes in that suit. They have not been put on notice. Their names do not appear anywhere on the processes in that suit. Their interest is not represented and as such, any judgment, order ruling and decision reached in the above suit will not be binding on them. He referred to paragraphs 7 (a), (c), (d), 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Claimants/Respondents counter affidavit. It is trite law that “a court of law has no power to make an order against the interest of a person who is not a party before it; as such an order is not in law binding on such a party…” Counsel cited the case of BELLO vs. INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION & 2 ORS (supra) ratio 7. See also the case of ADENUGA vs. ODUMERU (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 821) 163. He submitted that the claimants/respondents not being parties to Suit No: NICN/PHC/115/2013, there is no abuse of the judicial process of this court to warrant the filing of this frivolous and vexatious application by the 4th set of defendants/applicants. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the 4th set of defendant’s/applicant’s notice of preliminary objection on this issue. On issue two whether this suit is an abuse of the judicial process of this court, it is the contention of counsel that the Claimants/Respondents are not parties to suit No: NICN PHC/115/2013: CHIEF MONDAY ELEAZER (JP) & ANOR vs. MR. OBULOR ONWUGBONU & ORS as instituted by the 4th set of Defendant/Applicant. The reliefs as well as the subject matter the 4th set of Defendant/Applicant are seeking in suit No: NICN/PHC/115/2013 are in all material, different from the subject matter and reliefs the Claimants/Respondents are seeking in this present suit. Thus, the issue of abuse of the judicial process of this court does not arise. He referred the court to paragraphs 7 (a), (c), (d), 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Claimants/Respondents counter affidavit. According to counsel, it is not in dispute that the Claimants/Respondents instituted this suit No: NICN/PHC/109/2014 in this court and claimed the earlier stated reliefs against all the Defendants on record which my Lord can take judicial notice of in view of Section 122 (2) (m) of the Evidence Act. 2011 as follows: (a) A declaration that the defendants have no locus to interfere in the operation of tricyclists and their activities either by way of regulation or organization of the Keke Owners an Riders Association of Nigeria (KORAN). (b) A declaration that the Claimants’ Association (KORAN) is an Association of Keke Owners and Riders in relation to tricycles only. (c) A declaration that the Keke owners and Riders Association is the only body authorized by both the Federal and State governments in Nigeria to Unionize and organize Keke Owners and Riders under the National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP). (d) A declaration that the operation of Keke Napep (tricycles) and membership of Keke Owners and Riders Association are not affected by the Provisions of the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act, 2005 which makes membership of a trade union voluntary. (e) A declaration that the attempt by the defendants to hijack the members of the Claimants’ Association in Rivers State using various names is unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. (f) A declaration that the intimidation harassment, threats etc of the claimants members in Rivers State by the defendants in whatever guise is unlawful and illegal. (g) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, privies or whomsoever from harassing, intimidating, unionizing or hijactking the members of the Keke owners and Riders Association as their members. Unknown to the Claimants/Respondents, the 4th set of defendant/applicant had instituted the purported Suit No: NICN/PHC/115/2013: 1. CHIEF MONDAY ELEAZER (JP) (for himself as representing the motor cycle sections of Nigeria Union of road Transport Workers, Rivers State Chapter), 2. THE NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (NURTW) vs. (1) MR. OBULOR ONWUGBONU, (2) MR. OGRANYA ADIELA, (3) MR. ONYEMAECHI OJADI AND (4) MR. BENNETH ONYEOCHA (for themselves and on behalf of the registered Trustees of Association of Tri-cycle and motor cycle operators, Port Harcourt (ASSOTRICMOP) and claimed the following reliefs. (a) A declaration that the claimants is not only the registered National Trade Union vested with the responsibility to organize, regulate, manage and protect all workers engage in road transportation in Nigeria including motor-cycle riders but is also recognized by both the Rivers State Government and the Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Area (ONELGA) of rivers State. (b) A declaration that after the incorporation of the defendants that its right to operate in Omoku, the headquarter of the Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Area or any place in Rivers State is subject to the permission and authority of the appropriate authority which are Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni Local Government Council and the Rivers State government and that the permission and authority of the said appropriate authority not been obtained by the defendants and therefore cannot operate. (c) A declaration that the act of the defendants, through their task force, in stopping, beating and wounding the members of the claimants on the streets of Omoku and forcing and compelling them to pay dues, levies and contributions to the defendants is not only illegal and unlawful but also unconstitutional. (d) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves, their agents privies, etc from further operating in Omoku until the permission and authority of the appropriate authority have been sought and obtained. (e) An order or perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves, their agents, privies or howsoever called from further harassing, intimidating, stopping, beating and or wounding the members of the claimants in the street of Omoku and compelling or forcing them to pay dues, levies, contributions etc to the defendants. (f) The sum of N10,000,000.00(ten million naira) as general damages. It is trite law that “the institution of two suits will not amount to an abuse of court process where the parties in the two suits are different and the reliefs claimed are also not the same as in this instant case”. See the case of PLATEAU STATE OF NIGERIA & 2 ORS. vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ANOR (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 967) 346 at 393 paras. F – G. It is the submission of the claimants/respondents that this present suit is not an abuse of the judicial process of this Court. A careful examination of the facts in support of the Applicant’s Notice of Preliminary objection shows that a case of multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter between the same parties and on the same issues is certainly not made out by the applicant. Consequently the application should be dismissed as the parties, reliefs and subject matters in suit No. NICN/PHC/115/2013: CHIEF MONDAY ELEAZER & ANOR vs. MR. OBULOR ONWUGBONU & ORS pending in Calabar and suit No: NICN/PHC/109/2014: MR. BASHIR A. AKINOLA & ORS. vs. ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA & ORS pending in this court are different. Counsel referred the court to the case of OGOEJEOFO vs. OGOEJEOFO (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt. 966) 205 at 209 – 212 ratio 2. The court at this stage will look at the complaints as well as Statement as Facts of the two suits which on the fact of it show clearly the designated parties, reliefs and the subject matter of the suit to determine that… “if at the trial it is established that the claimants/respondents has presented conflicting claims in respect of the reliefs as well as the subject matter of this suit, the learned trial judge will surely deal with the situation as appropriately provided for by the law; it does not in my view, constitute an abuse of process of the court”, per ONNOGHEN, J.S.C. see the case of OGOEJEOFO vs. OGOEJEOFO (supra). On issue three whether Suit No. NICN/PHC/115/2013 is a competent process before this court, it is the submission of counsel for the Claimants/Respondents that the notice of preliminary objection as brought by the 4th set of defendants/applicants in this suit and the purported suit No: NICN/PHC/115/2013: CHIEF MONDY ELEAZER & ANOR VS. MR. OBULOR ONWUGBONU & ORS which they are seeking to rely on to challenge this present suit to be an abuse of court process is not properly before the court and the court cannot rely on same in view of Section 122 (2) (m) of the Evidence Act, 2011. The purported suit annexed to the 4th set of defendant/applicant’s affidavit in support of notice of preliminary objection as Exhibit “ama3” is a public document and the one annexed is a photocopy of the public document. It is settled law that the only admissible copy of the public document is the certified true copy. See Section 90 (1) (c) Evidence Act, 2011. Refer my Lord to the case of STERLING GEOTECHNICAL (NIG). LTD. vs. GALMAS INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ANOR (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 361 at 379, paras. C-H where it was stated that “…every public officer having the custody of a public document which any person has a right to inspect shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees thereof, as the case may be and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title and shall be sealed whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal and such copies so certified shall be called certified true copies…..” See also Section 104 (1), (2), (3) and 105 of the Evidence Act, 2011. It is Counsel’s contention therefore that the 4th set of defendants/applicant’s notice of preliminary object is an incompetent process before this court and the application has not been initiated by due process of law in order to vest this court with the necessary jurisdiction to entertain same. Refer the court to the case of MADUKOLU & ORS. VS. NKEMDILIM (1962) ANLR (PT. 2) 581 @ 581 ratio 6. Counsel submitted further that the proper order to be made by the Court in this suit is an order dismissing this application for being vexatious, frivolous and incompetent as shown by the various authorities cited above. What this court is to determine, from the foregoing arguments of the counsels to the parties, is whether this suit is an abuse of court process in view of suit NIC/PHC/115/2013. The contention of the applicant, who is the 4th defendant in this suit, is that this present suit constitutes an abuse of court process against it and should be struck out. The facts relied on by the applicant as constituting the abuse has been deposed to in the affidavit in support of the motion deposed to by Obulor Onwugbonu, who described himself as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the 4th defendant. The facts as deposed to are that the 4th defendant whose operation is presently restricted to Ogba/Egema/Ndoni LGA of Rivers State is duly registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission and its members are self-employed. The claimant is an affiliate of the National Union of Road Transport Workers (NURTW) as shown on exhibit AMA2 and the said NURTW has earlier filed Suit PHC/115 which is pending before this court on behalf of 2nd set of claimants seeking similar reliefs. The affidavit stated that the 4th defendant herein is the defendants in the said suit PHC/115. In the claimants counter affidavit, deposed to by Dickson Nyemaichukwu, the 9th claimant in the 2nd set of claimants averred that their union is the Keke Owners and Riders Association of Nigeria (KORAN) with branches all over Nigeria. The body has authority to unionise and regulate the Keke Owners and Riders operation in the Local Governments of Rivers State. KORAN is the only body registered to control and regulate the activities of KORAN within Rivers State. It is further deposed that the claimants were not parties to Suit PHC/115 which suit is not the same with this suit and the parties are not the same and reliefs sought in the 2 suits are different. From the applicant’s affidavit, its reason for contending that this suit constitutes an abuse of court process against it is that the claimant in suit PHC/115 is also the claimant in this case and the reliefs sought in suit PHC/115 are also the same sought in this suit. The applicant contends that it is the defendant in suit PHC/115. As a matter of fact, whether a case constitutes an abuse of court process will depend on the fact and circumstances of that case. It has been variously held by the courts that one of the circumstances that will give rise to abuse of court process is instituting a multiplicity of action on the same subject matter between the same parties and on the same issues. On this principle, the Supreme Court in SARAKI vs. KOTOYE 1992) 9 NWLR (Pt. 264) 156 at 188 puts it thus: “Employment of judicial process is only regarded generally as an abuse when a party improperly uses the issue of the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient and effective administration of justice. This will arise in instituting a multiplicity of action on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issue.” See also RE-BENKAY (NIG) LTD vs. CADBURY (NIG) PLC (2012) ALL FWLR (PT 631) 1450 AT 1466; ACCORD PARTY V. GOVERNOR OF KWARA STATE (2011) ALL FWLR (PT 555) 220 AT 296. From the above pronouncements of the courts, to constitute an abuse of court process, a claimant must have instituted more than one suit on the same subject matter, the same set of facts, the same issues and between the same parties. The question now is whether from the claims of the claimant in this case and suit PHC/115 in exhibit AMA3 annexed to the application, the parties, issues, subject matter and reliefs are the same in the two suits or whether the suit of the claimants has demonstrated the characteristics of abuse of court process as contended by the applicant. Are the parties in the two suits the same? A look at the complaint in this action reveals that the parties thereto are- CLAIMANTS: 1. MR. BASHIR A. AKINOLA 2. ALSHAJI SABITU A. GIWA 3. MALAM BALA M. HASSAN 4. PRINCESS ESTHER O. OGUNBANJO 5. ALHAJI ASHIRU S. BARMO 6. MR. SUNDAY ENANG (Suing as Registered Trustees of Keke Owners and Riders Association of Nigeria) 7. MR. JOHN ADEMOLA 8. MR. SAMUEL VIDOH 9. MR. DICKSON NYEMAICHUKWU (As Representatives of Keke Owners and Riders Association of Nigeria, Rivers State Chapter) DEFENDANTS: 1. ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA 2. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTIVE INITIATIVE 3. KEKE NAPEP DRIVERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA 4. ASSOCIATION OF TRICYCLE AND MOTOR CYCLE OPERATORS 5. RIVERS STATE TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE UNION LIMITED 6. KEKE DRIVERS ASSOCIATION Whereas in suit PHC/115, as reflected in Exhibit AMA3, the parties are: CLAIMANTS: 1. CHIEF MONDAY ELEAZER (Representing Motor and Motorcycle Section of NURTW, Rivers State Chapter) 2. NIGERIAN UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (NURTW) DEFENDANTS: 1. OBULOR NWOGBONU 2. OGRANYA ADEILA 3. ONYEMACHI OJADI 4. BENNETH ONYEOCHA (For themselves and the Registered Trustees of Association of Tri-cycle and Motor Cycle Operators, Port Harcourt (ASSOTRICMOP) From a comparison of the parties in the two suits, it is obvious that the parties are not the same. The claimants in the two actions are different. The claimants in suit PHC/115 are CHIEF MONDAY ELEAZER and NIGERIAN UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT WORKERS (NURTW). None of these is among the claimants in this suit. The applicant has contended that since the claimants in this case are affiliates of NURTW, it thus mean that it is the same claimant in both suits. I do not agree with this position of the applicant. The claimants in this case are the Registered Trustees of Keke Owners and Riders Association of Nigeria, an Association incorporated with the CAC. It is a legal personality separate and different from NURTW. Affiliation is only a combination of persons or organizations to undertake joint purposes. It does not mean they have become one and the same person. It is my view that the claimants in this suit are not the same as the claimant in Suit PHC 115. The defendants in the two suits are also different. The closest relationship with regards to defendants in the suits is the applicant/4th defendant in this suit. According to the applicant in its affidavit in support of the motion, it says that it is the defendant in suit PHC 115. But I can see on Exhibit AMA3 that the defendants in Suit PHC/115 were sued in their personal names. That is a different capacity as the 4th defendant/applicant in this case. With the different capacities and description of the 4th defendant/applicant in this case and the defendant in suit PHC/115, it cannot reasonably be concluded that they are the same party. See ONONYE vs. ODITA (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 409) 539 at 548. Be that as it may, there are other defendants in this case who are not parties to suit PHC/115. Therefore, I find that the parties in both suits are not the same. I will pause here briefly to comment on the relief sought by the applicant in this motion. The applicant wanted this suit to be struck out or dismissed as against it only. It appears to me the prayer has the effect of the striking out of the suit for reason of the abuse of court process. What I don’t fathom is the propriety of striking out this suit which has several other defendants only against one of the defendants? Assuming, but not so holding that in view of Suit PHC 115, this suit constitute abuse of court process with regard to the applicant alone, it is not enough reason to strike out the suit. At best, the applicant can apply for striking out of its name and not to ask that the entire suit be struck out or dismissed. Having come to the finding that the parties in the two actions are not the same, this ruling can safely be concluded as one of the vital ingredients of abuse of court process is absent. But since I have it on record that the applicant has contended further that the reliefs and issues in the two cases are the same, I think it is expedient to consider whether the other ingredients are present. The issues in this suit, as can be distilled from the statement of facts, are that the claimants’ association, KORAN, is the only body recognized by the Federal Government under the NAPEP programme to unionize, organize and control the operations of Keke NAPEP/tricycles’ activities in Nigeria but after its election to elect officer for its Oyigbo and Afam units on 5/2/2011, some disaffected members of the association introduced the 1st defendant, RTEAN, who in concert with the other defendants, intimidated and harassed members of the claimants with a view to forcefully unionizing the claimants. On the other hand, the Statement of Facts in Suit PHC 115 as disclosed in Exhibit AMA3, is that the 2nd claimant is a registered Trade Union of road transport workers, who has among its members, motor cycle riders in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni LGA of Rivers State. The defendants association, ASSOTRICMOP, is registered by CAC and its operation was to be subject to appropriate authority. But without obtaining the requisite permissions from Rivers State Government and the Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni LGA where they operate, the defendants started operating by constituting a taskforce of persons who stop all commercial motor cycle riders who are members of the 2nd claimant, and force them to pay dues to the defendants and any member of the 2nd claimant who refused was beaten up and his motor cycle seized by the defendants with the view to forcing the 2nd claimant’s members to comply. From the facts of the two cases, it is clear that the issues involved are not the same. Different set of facts and circumstances found the two actions. What about the reliefs sought upon the facts in the two suits? The applicant has also contended that the reliefs sought in the two suits are the same. I have compared the reliefs and I see that they are not the same. For the avoidance of doubt, they are reproduced hereunder as follows- In this suit, the claimants claims are- 1. A declaration that the defendants have no locus standi to interfere in the operation of tricyclists and their activities either by way of regulation or organisation of Keke Owners and Riders Association of Nigeria (KORAN), 2. A declaration that the claimants association (KORAN) is an association of Keke Owners and Riders in relation to Tricycles only, 3. A declaration that the keke owners and riders association is the only body authorised by both the federal and state goverments in Nigeria to unionise and organise keke owners and riders under the National Poverty eradication programme (NAPEP) 4. A decalration that the operation of keke Napep (Tricycles) and membership of keke owners and riders association are not affected by the provision of the Trade Unions Amendment Act 2005 which makes membership of a Trade Union voluntary 5. A declaration that the attempt by the defendants to hijack the members of the claimants’ association in Rivers State using various names is unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever 6. A declaration that the intimidation, harassment, threat etc of the claimants’ members in Rivers state by the defendants in whatever guise is unlawful and illegal 7. An order of perpetual in junction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, privies or whomsoever from harassing, intimidating, unionising or hijacking the members of keke owners and riders association as their members. In PHC/115, the reliefs sought are- 1. A declaration that the claimants are the registered national union with responsibility to organise and regulate workers engaged in road transportation in Nigeria, including motor cycle riders and it is also recognised by both Rivers State Government and Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni LGA and it is thus entitled to collect dues and levies from members operating in Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni LGA of River state. 2. A declaration that after the incorporation of the defendant, its right to operate in Omoku, headquarters of Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni LGA or any other place in Rivers state is subject to permission and authority of appropriate authority which are the Ogba/Egbema/Ndoni LGA and Rivers State Government and that the permission and authority of the said appropriate not been obtained by the defendants and therefore cannot operate 3. A declaration that the acts of the defendants through their taskforce in stopping, beating and wounding members of the claimants on the street of Omaku and forcing and compelling them to pay dues, levies and contributions to the defendants is not only illegal and unlawful but also unconstitutional. 4. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further operating in Omaku until the permission and authority of the appropriet authority have been sought and obtained. 5. Order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further harassing, intimidating, stopping, beating and or wounding member of the claimants in the streets of omaku and compelling or forcing them to pay dues, levies, contributions etc to the defendants. 6. The sum of N10,000,000 as general damages. Taking a critical look at these reliefs and in view of the issues and facts in respect thereof, it is not difficult to see that the reliefs are substantially different. From the foregoing, it is clear that the question of abuse of court process does not arise in this case. For there to be an abuse, all the ingredients must be present. I find that the ingredients for the constitution of abuse of court process are not present in the circumstance of this case. In the result, this application has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge