Forum procuring continues to check the integrity of Nigeria’s judicial system. A current instance is the Osun State High Court’s choice in Suit No. HOS/M.193/2026, which successfully vacated an earlier order of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1233/2026. The ruling raises critical questions on judicial comity, the boundaries of discretion, and the danger of abuse of course of. This article by Dr Amana Mohammed Yusuf examines these points, and their implications for public confidence within the administration of justice
Introduction
The Nigerian judicial system, meant to take care of justice and the rule of regulation, battles with challenges that pressure its integrity. The pattern of discussion board procuring, is among the many most controversial issues undermining the justice system’s equity and effectiveness. Forum procuring makes use of perceived jurisdictional overlaps and procedural ambiguities, to let litigants intentionally choose a courtroom they consider to be extra advantageous to their case. Recently, the Osun State High Court in Suit No. HOS/M.193/2026, The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice of Osun State v First Bank of Nigeria Limited & 29 Ors overturned/vacated an earlier ruling issued by the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1233/2026, Gamji Nigeria Company Limited v Osun State Government (Acting in Concert with Osun State Ministry of Water Resources and Osun Water Corporation) v Re: Guaranty Trust Bank Limited & 32 Ors, offering an particularly illuminating although upsetting instance of this dynamic. This incident begs critical points in regards to the integrity of courtroom processes, the chance of misuse of judicial energy, and the continuing issue of preserving judicial comity amongst a number of ranges of courts contained in the Nigerian authorized system. Within this setting, the Osun State High Court’s ruling appears to be a serious show of judicial discretion requiring intensive vital examination; thus, it could be seen not solely as a corrective motion, but additionally as a potential validation of discussion board procuring. The penalties of this choice can be examined on this article along with the underlying authorized ideas, potential causes for strategic litigation, ramifications for judicial precedent, and common affect on public confidence within the administration of the Nigerian justice system. This article hopes to exhibit how obvious abuse of judicial course of and arbitrary train of discretion, may promote behaviours that undermine the very pillars of a good and simply authorized system, by means of an evaluation of the subtleties of jurisdictional limits, the perform of judicial discretion, and the moral issues underlying such judicial declarations.
2. Understanding Forum Shopping within the Nigerian Context
Forum procuring is the act of deciding on a courtroom from amongst quite a few courts (having jurisdiction), wherein to submit a grievance. This choice is ceaselessly motivated by the expectation that one courtroom will present extra advantageous substantive regulation, procedural rules, or judicial attitudes than one other accessible venue. Judicially, in Mailantarki v Tongo & Ors (2017) LPELR-42467(SC), ‘Forum shopping occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular Court or jurisdiction, where he feels he will receive the most favourable decision or verdict’. The jurisdictional terrain in Nigeria is distinguished by a twin courtroom system: the Federal High Court and the State High Courts, along with different specialist courts. The Federal High Court has sole authority over a restricted listing of points in Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and another subject the National Assembly could by statute allocate upon it. By distinction, State High Courts have intensive jurisdiction below Section 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, with the caveat of the Federal High Court’s or different superior courts of file’s unique jurisdiction.
The chance for discussion board procuring comes from the factors the place the jurisdictions of the Federal High Court and State High Court may overlap or appear to take action, as rightly identified by (Wingate & Okoli, 2021). Affected events, generally counselled by attorneys, may intentionally select the venue they suppose would offer a faster settlement, a extra helpful interpretation of the regulation, or perhaps a extra sympathetic Judge. This strategic choice is ceaselessly considered an abuse of procedural rights; it’s adopted by Lawyers and shoppers, as a litigation technique. However, every time it’s used to evade unfavourable selections, skew authorized procedures, or take benefit of perceived flaws within the judicial system, it enters unethical floor. The current occasions involving the Osun State High Court and the Federal High Court, subsequently, function a transparent illustration of how a strategic choice, reminiscent of discussion board procuring, outcomes into an abuse of judicial course of.
3. Background to the Decisions in Suit No. HOS/M.193/2026, The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice of Osun State v First Bank of Nigeria Limited & 29 Ors and Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1233/2026, Gamji Nigeria Company Limited v Osun State Government (Acting in Concert with Osun State Ministry of Water Resources and Osun Water Corporation) v Re: Guaranty Trust Bank Limited & 32 Ors
The dispute between the events Gamji Nigeria Company Limited v Osun State Government, resulting in the fits earlier than the Federal High Court Lagos and the Osun State High Court, resulted from an arbitral award delivered on the twenty fourth day of July, 2026. The arbitral award issues a dispute arising from two water provide engineering contracts between Gamji Nigeria Company Limited, because the Claimant and Osun State Government, because the Respondent. Following the unsuccessful conciliation and mediation efforts by the events to resolve their dispute amicably through the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Funding Institution, the Islamic Development Bank, the arbitration clause contained within the contractual doc was activated and the events proceeded to arbitration to resolve their dispute. The arbitration was performed below the relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, topic to the events’ arbitration settlement and the relevant contractual phrases. The Tribunal after analyzing the proof, contractual phrases and controlling authorized ideas, entered an award considerably in favour of the Claimant, Gamji Nigeria Company Limited. The Tribunal made eight (8) particular orders involving numerous sums of cash, ordered 20% post-judgement curiosity on the judgement sum, and directed the reimbursement of Tribunal operational price.
The Claimant, Gamji Nigeria Company Limited, in Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1233/2026, Gamji Nigeria Company Limited v Osun State Government (Acting in Concert with Osun State Ministry of Water Resources and Osun Water Corporation) v Re: Guaranty Trust Bank Limited & 32 Ors, approached the Federal High Court Lagos through an software dated the seventh September, 2026, in search of, as said within the Claimant’s software file, an interim preservatory order, directing the listed monetary establishments in Nigeria to instantly place Post No Debit restrictions on the account of Osun State Government, the Respondent, in direction of the liquidation of the Arbitral Award, which the Claimant said has turn into due and enforceable, pending the listening to and dedication of the movement on discover. The Court granted the aid on the twenty ninth September, 2026 and adjourned the case to the twenty second October, 2026 for the listening to of the movement on discover. The Respondent, on 2nd October, 2026, filed an software earlier than the Federal High Court Lagos, in search of to discharge/setting apart the preservatory order of interim injunction made by the courtroom. While the appliance earlier than the Federal High Court Lagos was pending, the Respondent on the fifth day of October, 2026, filed comparable software earlier than the Osun State High Court in search of: An Interim Order of the Honourable Court directing every one of the Defendants (Banks) to take away the restriction and/or the Post No debit that was positioned on account of the Osun State Government, in addition to restraining every one of the Defendants (Banks) from additional persevering with to put any restriction of any sort, be it Post No Debit and/or another kind of restriction on all and/or every of the accounts of Osun State Government, the Respondent that are domiciled with every of the Defendants (Banks).
The Osun State High Court on the thirteenth October, 2026, granted the Respondent, Osun State Government reliefs, as recorded within the courtroom’s order, which particularly ordered that: 1) An Interim Order of this Court is directed every one of the Defendants to take away the restriction and/or the Post No Debit that was positioned on multiple account of Osun State Government domiciled with every of the Defendants pending the listening to and dedication of the Motion on Notice; and a couple of) I grant an Order of Interim Injunction restraining every one of the Defendants from additional persevering with to put restriction of any sort, be it Post No Debit and/or another kind of restriction, on all and/or every of the accounts of Osun State Government domiciled with every of the Defendants besides one of the stated accounts which the Defendants have discretion to put restriction on pursuant to the order of the Federal High Court, granted by Hon. Justice D.E. Osiagor of twenty ninth September, 2026.
4. The Jurisdictional Conundrum
Understanding the ramifications, requires a cautious consideration of the actual occasions resulting in the Osun State High Court overturning Federal High Court ruling. The broad outlines of the battle and the courts’ participation level to a situation whereby a celebration, having confronted an unfavourable end result or anticipating one in a single courtroom, sought a distinct judicial path. Entrusted with its specific statutory powers, the Federal High Court most positively issued an order based mostly on its interpretation of the case earlier than it. The Osun State High Court, alternatively, issued an order overturning or contradicting the Federal High Court’s directive, a courtroom of coordinate jurisdiction.
It is respectfully submitted that the jurisdictional conundrum is: whether or not Osun State High Court can arbitrarily and abusively put aside an order of the Federal High Court, a courtroom of co-ordinate jurisdiction? Alternatively, did the Osun State High Court utilise its discretion arbitrarily and abusively, in a way that, regardless of being legally conscious of the order of the Federal High Court, granted by Hon. Justice D.E. Osiagor of twenty ninth September, 2026, virtually enabled discussion board procuring? It has been held by the Apex Court in plethora of instances that ‘except in cases of lack of jurisdiction, nullity, or fraud, a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction has no jurisdiction to set aside the decision of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. It cannot make an order completely in conflict with a subsisting order of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, over the same subject matter or on identical prayers’, A.-G., Fed. v Kashamu (No.2) (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1711) 281; Customary Court of Appeal, Edo State v Aguele (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 369 at . 395, paras. D-E, SC; Orji v Chima & Ors (2023) LPELR-60345(SC). This is outwardly so, as a result of a courtroom of coordinate jurisdiction can’t sit on attraction over the judgement or order of a courtroom of coordinate jurisdiction, Eneh v NDIC & Ors (2018) LPELR-44902(SC) (Pp 23 – 25 Paras F – D); In Re: Alhaji Abdulhafiz Onigemo & Anor (2025) LPELR-82642(CA) (Pp 14 – 14 Paras C – D). Although, Wingate & Okoli have argued that the allocation of jurisdiction for courtroom intervention in arbitration is contested, within the instances resulting in this text, it’s respectfully contended that the suitable circumstances or situations the place a courtroom of co-ordinate jurisdiction could put aside the order or proceedings of one other courtroom of co-ordinate jurisdiction weren’t current. Indeed, the right trigger of motion open to the Osun State Government, the celebration dissatisfied with the order or the choice of the Federal High Court, was to use earlier than the identical courtroom to have the order put aside or to go on attraction, and to not file a number of functions in search of the identical reliefs earlier than totally different courts.
The order of the Osun State High Court, the end result of a a number of comparable functions filed on totally different dates however pending concurrently is very worrisome, because it demonstrates an intentional evasion of a previous courtroom ruling by the tactical use of its discretionary powers. Such arbitrary and abusive train of discretion undermines the authority of the courts, by giving the impression of judicial dysfunction and inspiring the celebration in whose favour it was given, to view courtroom rulings as solely suggestions as an alternative of binding statements. It is most respectfully contended that the capability of one courtroom to independently annul the order of one other, particularly when it appears to be a strategic transfer, factors out a potential weak point within the judicial system that could be taken benefit of.
5. Arbitrary Use and Abuse of Judicial Discretion
When a State High Court units apart a Federal High Court order, significantly below circumstances indicative of discussion board procuring, this alerts a potential misuse of judicial energy. Within the boundaries of the regulation, judicial discretion is the authority of a decide to find out the actual info and circumstances of a case. It allows Judges to customize justice to specific instances, and is crucial to a versatile and truthful authorized system. But, discretion will be misused whether it is utilized in an arbitrary, fickle method or for grounds not supposed by the regulation, Emueze & Ors v Governor of Delta State & Ors (2014) LPELR-23201(CA); Eye v F.R.N. (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 495 at P. 511, para. A; Galadima v State (2025) LPELR-81256(CA); Ayih & Ors v Jatau & Ors (2024) LPELR-61775(CA). The train of the discretion by the Osun State High Court, it’s most respectfully argued, enters the realm of abuse and arbitrariness, because the Federal High Court on the time of the ruling was correctly seised of the jurisdiction to make a preservatory order or appeared to be a direct response to a celebration, the Osun State Government, trying to keep away from the Federal High Court’s ruling. It goes with out saying that the urge by a courtroom to arbitrarily and abusively use its discretion to hasten alleged justice or injustice or to favour a selected celebration is just not judicial or considered, and subsequently, mistaken. This undermines judicial processes and quantities to a show of judicial rascality, NBC Plc v Kaybrown (Nig) Ltd (2018) LPELR-46959(CA) (Pp 16 – 17 Paras A – E). This is contextually so, as a result of the courtroom was already conscious even from the Osun State Government software that points have been joined earlier than the Federal High Court Lagos, or higher nonetheless the Osun State High Court must enquire from the Learned Senior Counsel, whether or not comparable software was pending earlier than the courtroom that made the order. It signifies and sends an faulty message to the authorized group and the general public, that courtroom orders usually are not all the time definitive and will be reversed by one other courtroom through the instrumentality of discussion board procuring. The penalties are grave, as this may create a chaotic authorized scene whereby the steadiness and predictability of regulation are jeopardised. Particularly pernicious is the validation of discussion board procuring by such strategies because it disguises itself as authorized judicial conduct, so difficult is tough and even tougher to appropriate. It fosters a society of procedural gamesmanship, as an alternative of one of substantive justice.
6. Implications of Arbitrary and Abusive Use of Judicial Discretion for Judicial Precedent and Public Trust
There are broad penalties when a State High Court vacates a Federal High Court order, significantly when it appears to assist discussion board procuring utilizing judicial discretion improperly. First of all, it severely erodes the character of the sometimes-jurisdictional overlap of the 2 courts within the Nigerian courtroom system hierarchy. In different phrases, it misrepresents the Osun State High Court as being superior to the Federal High Court, inside the broader scope of jurisdiction of courts in Nigeria. When a State High Court overturns or invalidates a Federal High Court choice, there could be uncertainty as to which choice prevails. This contradiction undermines the authoritative energy of judicial pronouncements and complicates authorized professionals’ and the general public’s dependence on established precedents.
Secondarily, arbitrary and abusive use of judicial discretion, injury public religion within the authorized system. Justice is run on the idea of impartiality, equity, and predictability. Party’s confidence within the courts decreases after they suppose the system will be exploited by means of strategic discussion board choice and maybe, prejudiced judicial /discretion. This may trigger cynicism to develop, a resistance to work together with the authorized system, and the assumption that justice is susceptible to vary relatively than being blind. A judicial system that appears to be sporadically making use of the regulation or let its procedures be compromised by procedural gamesmanship, runs the hazard of dropping its credibility within the public’s notion.
Additionally, arbitrary and abusive use of judicial discretion can promote extra discussion board procuring. Potentially, a litigant who efficiently makes use of one courtroom to overturn an order from one other encourages others to observe swimsuit. This may end in a torrent of lawsuits meant to re-litigate resolved points in a number of venues, subsequently taxing the courts and diverting judicial assets from actual conflicts. The authorized career itself could undergo negatively, as practitioners could really feel pushed to take part in tactical trickery relatively than focus on the deserves of their shoppers’ instances. Therefore, the ruling of the Osun State High Court is just not solely an remoted authorized battle, but additionally a case examine on how public belief and the integrity of the judicial system could be drastically impacted by judicial rulings, significantly these involving the misuse of discretion.
7. Addressing Forum Shopping: Towards a More Robust Judicial Framework
The drawback offered by discussion board procuring, as proven by the Osun State High Court’s vacating of the Federal High Court’s ruling, requires a multi-pronged technique to reinforce the Nigerian judicial system. First, it’s crucial to obviously outline the boundaries of authority between State and Federal courts. Either by legislative change or by common and authoritative interpretations by the upper courts, particularly the Supreme Court, uncertainties in laws conferring jurisdiction needs to be resolved. When jurisdictional limits are exactly outlined, the possibilities for litigants to take benefit of obvious overlaps are drastically decreased.
Second, Nigerian courts, with respect, ought to apply the choice principle of discussion board non conveniens extra typically and vigorously. Forum non conveniens doctrine has its roots in English frequent regulation and the United States case of Gulf Oil Corp. v Gilbert (330 US 501) [1947), to address the problems of jurisdiction and venue. The doctrine is a judicial instrument that enables courts to dismiss a case, when there is an easily accessible and more appropriate alternative forum to determine/resolve the dispute. Rooted in the court’s inherent ability to run its docket and guarantee the fair administration of justice, this equitable approach lets a court reject jurisdiction even when it formally has it. The current formulation of the doctrine tilt heavily in balancing and enforcing the parties chosen venue in resolving their contractual dispute, Atlantic marine Construction Co. v United States District Court (28 USC 1404(a) [2013). In the contractual agreement of the parties to the case leading to the arbitration, Lagos state was the preferred venue chosen by the parties. The hypothesis and application of the forum non conveniens doctrine in Nigeria being suggested by this article, is a key tool for courts to control their dockets and advance the fair and effective administration of justice. Although not a statutory right, it can be used by Judges to refuse jurisdiction in cases where an appropriate and more practical substitute venue is available. By so doing, courts can stop bothersome lawsuits, prevent unneeded strain on the court system, and guarantee that conflicts are settled in the most suitable location by balancing public and private interests. Although it does not give a court free licence to decline jurisdiction, it offers a crucial tool to guarantee that cases are heard in the venue where they may be most easily and fairly adjudicated. Courts should be allowed and urged to take into account variables like, the peculiarities of facts of the case and the agreements of parties. This would discourage forum shopping, as litigants would have less chance of moving their cases to a court that is not really more suitable.
Thirdly, it is imperative to encourage judicial comity and inter-court communication. Although direct appeals are the conventional approach for contesting court rulings, encouraging a culture whereby courts of adjacent jurisdiction respect one another’s judgements or orders and strive to prevent contradictory decisions, is absolutely critical. This may be attained through formal institutionally governed channels, for inter-court communication. If a court is thinking about challenging or overturning an order from another court, it should proceed with extreme care, making sure that its decisions are firmly based on established legal norms and not on tactical concerns.
Lastly, judicial ethics and accountability have roles to play. Judges must resist the urge to use their discretion in a way that seems to help particular parties, or to make procedural manipulation easier. Continuous judicial education on jurisdictional issues, moral norms, and the repercussions of misusing judicial power might assist to support the ideals of justice and impartiality. Moreover, strong systems for handling arbitrary and abuse of judicial discretion, including choices that seem arbitrary or politically driven, can act as a deterrent and support public trust maintenance. The legal community also have a duty to reject and expose cases of flagrant forum shopping, and to maintain high ethical standards in their legal conduct.
8. Conclusion
The Osun State High Court’s overturning of a Federal High Court order is a major judicial event with major consequences for the Nigerian legal system. Although the precise merits of the matter need careful investigation, the larger background indicates a disturbing situation whereby the possible misuse of judicial discretion may have enabled forum shopping. This occurrence highlights the ongoing issues of jurisdictional ambiguity, the delicate interplay of judicial authority, and the critical need of judicial comity. The ramifications for judicial precedent are significant, probably undermining the legitimacy of court rulings and generating legal instability. More crucially, such events can significantly undermine public confidence in the Judiciary, a foundation of democratic government.
Tackling forum shopping therefore, calls for a coordinated approach to improve jurisdictional clarity, reinforce the application of concepts like forum non conveniens, promote more judicial comity, and maintain the highest moral and accountability standards for the Judiciary. The ruling of the Osun State High Court reminds us critically that the integrity of the justice system rests, not only on the letter of the law, but also on the way judicial discretion is used, and the respect given to the decisions of other courts. Without these protections, the quest for justice runs the risk of being eclipsed by procedural gamesmanship, so eroding the rule of law and public trust in the judicial process.
Dr Amana Mohammed Yusuf, Department of international Law and Jurisprudence, Faculty of Law, Bayero University Kano. Currently on Sabbatical Leave at Skyline University Nigeria, Kano as the Dean of the School of Legal Studies. 08033340192 myamana.ilj@buk.edu.ng; amankg77@gmail.com; amana.yusuf@sun.edu.ng
