Supreme Court Warns Against Frivolous Litigation, Fines Recalcitrant Litigants
The Supreme Court has issued a stern warning to litigants engaging in frivolous and vexatious cases, imposing a ₦60 million fine on Edozie Njoku and his faction in the leadership tussle of the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA). This decision underscores the apex court’s stance that “there must be an end to litigation.”
Njoku, who had been embroiled in a prolonged dispute with Sylvester Ezeokenwa over APGA’s chairmanship since 2021, was found to have persistently filed baseless applications to relitigate an already resolved case. In a unanimous ruling, a five-member panel reaffirmed Ezeokenwa as the legitimate National Chairman, declaring Njoku’s claims unfounded and dismissing his attempts to enforce a judgment that granted no executory reliefs.
Justice Stephen Adah, delivering the lead judgment, emphasized that internal party leadership issues are not subject to judicial review. He criticized lower court judges who entertained Njoku’s suits, asserting they should have exercised greater caution. The Supreme Court also set aside a Court of Appeal ruling that had wrongly affirmed Njoku’s leadership claims.
To deter such judicial abuses, the court awarded ₦20 million in costs for each of three appeals, amounting to ₦60 million.
Legal analysts argue that higher penalties are necessary to curb the increasing trend of forum shopping and frivolous litigation. The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against relitigating settled cases, yet litigants continue to defy these admonitions.
Notably, the apex court previously imposed fines in high-profile cases, such as the 2020 Bayelsa governorship tussle, where it fined senior lawyers Chief Afe Babalola (SAN) and Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN) ₦30 million for filing what it deemed frivolous applications. Similarly, in the 2019 Zamfara State intra-party dispute, the court fined litigants ₦280 million for seeking to overturn its consequential orders.
The Supreme Court’s unwavering position is that its decisions are final, and any attempt to challenge this principle undermines the judiciary’s authority. Justice Amina Augie’s emotional rebuke during the Bayelsa case highlighted the court’s resolve to maintain judicial integrity, stressing, “There must be an end to every litigation.”
To reinforce this stance, legal experts advocate for even more prohibitive fines to deter recalcitrant litigants and their legal representatives from abusing judicial processes. This approach aims to preserve the sanctity of the judiciary and ensure that the principle of finality in legal decisions is respected.
