PDP v. Sen. Ali Modu Sheriff & Ors.  15 NWLR (Pt. 1588) 219 at 279-280, paras. F-B, per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC:
“The 1st respondent and his allies filed over ten suits. The Court of Appeal had this to say. The 1st appellant (i.e. 1st respondent) I agree displayed an infantile desperation to cling to office at all costs. I agree with the observation of the Court of Appeal. The 1st respondent was always driven by the implacable desire to remain in office as chairman at all cost. That desire was explored relentlessly by filing over ten suits within one year to perpetrate himself in office. Most of those suits have been abandoned. They shall forever gather dust in judicial archives and remain dusty reminders of how not to seek judicial remedy. The stakes are very high in political matters. So, if allowed, political office seekers would not hesitate to file multiplicity of suits on the same subject matter, hoping to get a favourable judgment from one court or the other. Their quest for this includes forum shopping. Heads of court must by now be aware of this trend and stop this annoying practice of assigning cases on the same subject matter to different judges, who very likely would render conflicting decisions, ending up making the judiciary a laughing stock. Trial judges must also be on the lookout, and refrain from proceeding with any case when aware that his brother judge is handling a similar matter.”
The facts of the above case touching on the tussle for the leadership position (National Chairman) of the Appellant party, PDP, are very much in the public domain. We will not bother with that here save to mention that after much controversy, the Supreme Court ousted the 1st Respondent from the position of the National Chairman. Continue reading Heads of court must prevent politicians from abuse of court process.