PDP v. Ezeonwuka [2018] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1606) 263-264, paras. E-C, Eko, JSC:

“The instant suit was conceived in the guise of Jankara practice; the aim of which is the abuse of judicial process. Time was when a landlord in Jankara area of Lagos would engage a lawyer to evict a tenant by resort to sharp practice. The tenant named on the writ would be served through a pseudo tenant, a false proxy tenant. The pseudo tenant would sign the processes acknowledging “service”. On the return date, the court or tribunal “satisfied that the processes were duly served” and there being no defence to the suit entered judgment summarily evicting the tenant, who heard of the suit against him for the first time when bailiffs arrived to evict him. This sharp practice gradually, through a process of corrupt evolution, metamorphosed through the agency of politicians in the 1980’s and 1990’s, who resorted to ex parte injunctions to truncate meetings or party conventions that they perceived likely to be unfavourable to them. Nigerians derisively called these “black market injunctions”. The instant suit seems to be a variant or specie of abuse of judicial process designed to produce “black market injunctions”, and it did…”

Notes:

In the instant case, the Supreme Court refused to allow the triumph of sharp practice occasioned by the 1st Respondent (a lawyer) who instituted a “gagging suit” or “Jankara suit” against the interest of the 5th Co-Appellant, Hon. Ben Nwankwo, who was never made aware of the suit until judgment was delivered. The matter had to do with the primary election conducted by PDP in Orumba North/South Federal Constituency to elect its candidate for the general election rescheduled of 27/3/2015 into the National Assembly (House of Representatives).  Hon. Ben Nwankwo was declared winner. The 1st Respondent challenged this by filing a suit at the Federal High Court against PDP and some of its officers and organs including INEC. The 1st Respondent did not join Hon. Ben Nwankwo. Judgement was entered in favour of the 1st Respondent. PDP (and some of its officers and organs sued) appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. They appealed to the Supreme Court.

At this stage, Hon. Ben Nwankwo applied and was granted leave to appeal as a party interested (5th Co-Appellant). His contention was that he won both the PDP primary election and the main election. Instead of being declared the winner of the election by the returning officer, he was confronted with court Judgment in a suit he was not made a party to, in spite of his interest and position. His attempt to join in the proceedings at the Court of Appeal was not successful as his application to that effect was not heard before the final Judgment.

Interestingly, on the day of the hearing of the appeal at the Supreme Court, PDP and its caucus members, withdrew their appeal, leaving only the appeal of Hon. Ben Nwankwo (and the 1st Respondent’s cross-appeal against the order of re-run made by the Court of Appeal).

The Supreme Court berated the PDP for what it described as “disgraceful ambivalence” and proceeded to determine the appeal of Hon. Ben Nwankwo. The apex Court found merit in his appeal and discountenanced the cross-appeal. The 1st Respondent was consequently ordered to vacate the seat he unlawfully sat on at the House of Representatives and to refund to the National Assembly all monies collected by him by way of salary/allowances.

Desperate people often resort to desperate measures to actualize their aims and aspirations. This includes deliberate abuse of judicial process. In many cases, the system adopted (especially by Nigerian politicians) often brings embarrassment to the judiciary as innocent judges are drawn into the middle of unfortunate controversies. For instance, we have seen cases of multiplicity of suits on the same subject matter involving the same parties before different judges, whereupon, these different judges unknowingly hand down conflicting decisions to the benefit of mischievous persons.

In other cases, some bad eggs in the judicial system allow themselves to be used as vessels to abuse the judicial process. Sadly, some lawyers, unreasonably determined to do the bidding of their clients, also get involved in the whole mess.

It is submitted that any litigant involved in sharp practices and abuse of court process should be made to face the music. More importantly, in deserving cases, any Living Oracle of the Law found wanting should be dethroned and severely punished accordingly. This should also apply to the Ministers in the Temple of Justice. The integrity of the judicial system must be preserved at all times.