LSP016: Forum Shopping

The end goal for every litigant when instituting an action before the court of law is to win and receive favourable verdict. In the quest to win, some litigants often resort to using mechanisms that are contrary to the tenets of Justice. One of such is forum shopping.

Forum shopping is the unscrupulous practice of instituting an action in a court where a party is likely to receive favourable decision. As stated by the Court of Appeal in Oyinlola v. Dayo & Ors (2013) LPELR-CA/A/84/2013, a plaintiff may engage in forum-shopping by filing a suit in a Judicial Division with a reputation where the learned Judge awards heavy costs or damages to the successful party, or where the judge, belongs to the same religious affiliation, has a soft spot for a political party or they belong to the same social or sporting club, etc.

As held in Alhaji Muhammadu Maigari Dingyadi & Anor v. Independent National Electoral Commission & 2 Ors, forum shopping is an abuse of court process and it is regarded as a jurisdictional issue. It is not merely an irregularity that could be pardoned or overlooked but it constitutes a fundamental defect, the resultant effect of which would lead to a dismissal of the process that is abusive. As noted in the case of Arubo v. Aiyeleru(1993) 3 NWLR (PT. 280) Page 125, the Supreme Court held that once a court is satisfied that the proceeding before it amounts to an abuse of process, it has the right or duty to invoke its powers to punish the party which is in abuse of its process.

In Mailantarki v. Tongo & Ors (supra), the facts of the case were that the Appellant and Respondent contested the National Assembly primary election for the election of APC candidate for the Gombe/Kwami/Funakaye seat in the House of Representatives. The whole voting exercise, which was held on 8th December 2014, took place in the Malam Sidi constituency, Gombe State. The first respondent (Tongo) won the primary ticket. This caused the Appellant to institute an action before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) against the emergence of the 1st respondent as the 2nd respondent’s (All Progressives Congress) flag bearer. The main issue for determination in this appeal is whether or not the High Court of the FCT lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s claim.

Giving the lead judgment, Per EKO, J.S.C. stated thus: the decision to file this suit in the FCT High Court far away from Gombe State where the cause of action arose cannot be anything but a sheer decision to abuse the judicial process. It was a decision to actuate forum shopping….the instant Appellant, as the plaintiff, had artfully avoided the High Court of Gombe State, in preference to the FCT High Court, because the former as it appears maybe a forum inconvenience.

In addition, Kekere Ekun J.S.C also stated unequivocally that: in the instant case, the cause of action, which is the primary election of the 2nd respondent, took place in Gombe State. The appeal committee also sat in Gombe State. There is therefore no justification for the institution of the suit before the High Court of the FCT in Abuja. The filing of the suit before that Court is a clear example of “forum shopping” in the hope of securing a favourable outcome. This practice has been seriously deprecated in numerous decisions of this Court; The practice does not augur well for the administration of justice. It is also unethical practice on the part of the legal practitioner who filed the suit.

At this point, it is worthy of note that forum shopping is different from exercising one’s choice in courts that have concurrent jurisdiction. For instance, if a party’s Fundamental Human Rights have been violated, such an individual, by virtue of S.46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Order 1 rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, can either institute the action in High Court of that State or the division of the Federal High Court in that State. This was in recognition of the fact that by conferring jurisdiction on the Federal High Court and the High Court of a State or the Federal Capital Territory, the intention of the lawmaker was to give an aspirant the flexibility of ventilating his grievance in any of the Courts listed therein depending on which location is most convenient to the parties. And it is immaterial whether the defendant is a Federal Agency. See the celebrated case of Jack v. University of Agriculture, Makurdi (2004) 1 SC (Pt.1) 100 @ 111-112 and a recent 2020 case of EFCC v. Reinl (2020) LPELR-SC.428/2018

In conclusion, forum shopping is an abuse of court process which is aimed at interfering with the course of Justice.

Thanks for reading. See you next week.❤