The Federal High Court in Lagos dismissed a suit filed by FBN Quest Trustees Limited and a court-appointed receiver, describing the action as “vexatious,” “frivolous,” and a “gross abuse of court process.”
In his judgement, Justice Akintayo Aluko not only struck out the suit but also ordered the plaintiffs and their counsel to pay millions of naira in damages and legal costs.
Most notably, the court directed senior lawyer Norrison Quakers to personally pay N2 million to the defendants for instituting what the court described as a frivolous action that negatively affected the reputation of the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (RCICAL).
The judge also awarded N15 million as reimbursement for legal expenses incurred by the defendants and an additional N5 million against the 1st plaintiff.
The suit, marked FHC/L/CS/1651/2024, was instituted by FBN Quest Trustees Limited and Mr. Henry Enemodia, a court-appointed receiver/manager over several companies, including Melrose Books & Publishing Ltd, Bromley Packaging Nigeria Ltd, Bromley Technology Ltd, and Aristocrat Specialties Nigeria Ltd.
They had sued the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration and its Director, Dr. McHarry Mordi, challenging the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from agreements executed between the parties.
At the heart of the dispute was the appointment of Prof. Ike Ehiribe as sole arbitrator by the arbitration centre pursuant to arbitration clauses contained in offer letters dated August 13, 2020 and November 11, 2020.
The plaintiffs argued that the arbitral proceedings ought not to continue because appeals and applications for stay of execution relating to earlier Federal High Court decisions were already pending before the Court of Appeal.
However, Justice Aluko rejected the arguments and held that the suit was fundamentally defective.
In the detailed ruling delivered on May 8, 2026, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs had improperly initiated a fresh action while related appeals and stay applications were already pending before the appellate court.
According to the court, the new suit was filed principally to frustrate compliance with earlier court orders directing the parties to proceed to arbitration.
The judge held that the plaintiffs were effectively inviting the Federal High Court to review and scrutinise earlier decisions already on appeal, an exercise he said the court lacked jurisdiction to undertake.
He noted that the plaintiffs had already filed appeals and motions for stay of execution against the decisions delivered in Suit Nos. FHC/AB/CS/69/2023 and FHC/L/CS/579/2024, both of which ordered parties to submit their disputes to arbitration in line with contractual agreements.
Justice Aluko ruled that filing another suit while those processes were still pending amounted to duplicity and multiplicity of actions over the same subject matter.
“The instant suit and the claims of the plaintiffs are vexatious, frivolous and amount to gross abuse of court process,” the judge held.
The court further stated that Nigerian courts already possess established mechanisms for preserving the subject matter of pending appeals through applications for stay or injunctions and that filing a separate action to achieve the same purpose was improper.
The judge relied extensively on decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on abuse of court process, including Edem v. Ishie, GTB Plc v. Innoson Nigeria Ltd, and Cowrie Business Solutions Ltd v. NDIC.
Justice Aluko stressed that there must be an end to litigation and warned against the improper use of court processes to frustrate existing judicial proceedings.
In another major aspect of the ruling, the court upheld the immunity enjoyed by the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration under the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 and the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Order 2001.
The plaintiffs had argued that the arbitration centre and its officials acted in bad faith and therefore could not rely on statutory immunity.
But the court found no evidence to support the allegation.
Justice Aluko held that the arbitration centre merely acted within its statutory mandate by appointing an arbitrator upon request and pursuant to existing contractual arbitration clauses and previous court decisions.
The court held that Section 13(1) of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 protects arbitral institutions, arbitrators, and appointing authorities from liability for acts done in the discharge of their functions unless bad faith is proven.
According to the judge, the plaintiffs failed to produce any credible evidence showing that the arbitration centre acted outside its authority or acted maliciously.
He further clarified that although the arbitration centre could sue and be sued as a corporate body, such legal personality did not extinguish the immunity expressly granted to it under Nigerian law.
The court also dismissed arguments that the Director of the Centre, Dr. McHarry Mordi, could personally be sued over actions carried out on behalf of the institution.
Justice Aluko held that the documents before the court showed clearly that Mordi acted solely in his official capacity for the centre.
The judge additionally rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection was incompetent because it was allegedly filed outside the time prescribed by the Federal High Court Rules.
According to the court, jurisdictional objections can be raised at any stage because issues of jurisdiction are fundamental and cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities.
Perhaps the most dramatic aspect of the judgment was the personal cost order made against Norrison Quakers.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Degi-Eremienyo v. PDP, Justice Aluko held that courts possess the power to award costs personally against counsel in cases involving abusive litigation.
The court concluded that the suit filed by the plaintiffs fell squarely within that category.
Consequently, the court dismissed the entire suit and ordered the plaintiffs to pay N15 million legal expenses to the defendants, N5 million costs against the 1st plaintiff, and N2 million personally against the plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Norrison Quakers.
Comments