6.5.5. Counsel for the 4th and 5th Defendants reminded the Court that this suit is a further abuse of court process, in that there is already a suit filed in this Court, bearing Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/06/12 (Vincent Agu and 19 others), by the same lawyers for the Applicants against the same Defendants, involving the same subject matter, and presenting the same issues for determination. 6.5.6. In defense of his Motion to withdraw or discontinue his case, Counsel for the Applicants contended that the granting or denial of an application depends on the reliefs sought. Plaintiffs further argued that there is a difference between withdrawing or discontinuing a case as of right and doing so by special permission or leave of the court. 6.5.7. Counsel said it is unethical and deceptive to the Plaintiffs for counsel to continue pursuing this case and it constitutes a waste of time and money. He said this discontinuance is not based on the fact that their case is statute barred. 6.5.8. Plaintiffs argued that the cases cited by the Defendants are not relevant or analogous to this instant case in that, in the cited cases, the cases had been heard on the merits and the withdrawal or discontinuance was as of right; whereas, in this - 27 case, the case has not yet been heard on the merits and the withdrawal or discontinuance sought is not one of right but by special leave of court. 6.5.9. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ counsel prayed the court to overrule the objections of the Defendants and grant his prayer and permit the Plaintiffs to withdraw or discontinue their case. He also prayed that costs be disallowed because none of the parties specifically claimed or demanded costs in their pleading, as required by the Rules of this Court. 7. A. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED 7.1. The Defendants/Respondents have contended that after issues have been joined in a case, the said case cannot be withdrawn or discontinued by the Plaintiff. 7.2. The Respondents have also contended that this Motion to withdraw or discontinue will amount to an abuse of court process if the Plaintiffs are allowed to subsequently re-file the same suit after its discontinuance. 7.3. The 4th and 5th Respondents have also contended that this suit of the Plaintiffs is an abuse of court process considering the existence of the prior suit of Vincent Agu, et al and therefore incompetent.