ECW/CCJ/APP/11/14 between Placid Dr. Sam Emeka Ukaegbu and Others vs. President, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Federal Government of Nigeria, Ministry of Defense, R.S.B. Holdings Nig. Ltd., Deminers Concept Nig. Ltd., Attorney General of the Federation, and State Security Services. (SSS). 8.3.3. The Defendants/Respondents have contended that a multiplicity of suits which involves the same parties and the same subject matter amounts to an abuse of court process, and this Court has the duty to strike out or dismiss the said suit. - 31 8.3.4. In review of the three prior cases referred to by the Defendants/Respondents, the Court takes judicial notice that they all have the subject matter of landmines, war relics, unexploded bombs and other such remnants of the Nigerian civil war which occurred between 1967-1970 in the various States in the South-East and South-South Zones of Nigeria. The Applicants in all these cases complained of abandoned war relics, remnants of the civil war, unexploded ammunitions, injuries to their persons, damage to their environment and communities, deprivation of rights and freedoms, etc. 8.3.5. The facts are that the Federal Republic of Nigeria accepted to assume responsibility to identify, clear, demine, remove and destroy all such war relics and remnants of the Nigerian civil war and contracted the services of Messrs. R.S.B. Holdings and Deminers Concept, respectively, to carry out these tasks. The functionaries of the Government are those persons listed as Respondents along with the private contractors. 8.3.6. Therefore it is not in dispute that the parties are the same, the subject matter and transaction and sources are all the same, the reliefs sought in all the suits are the same, the Respondents sued are all the same and even the counsel for the Applicants are the same in all the other cases as well as this. 8.3.7. The Supreme Court of Nigeria held inter alia: “It is settled law that generally, abuse of process contemplates multiplicity of suits between the same parties in regards to the same subject matter and on the same issues. This manner of using court process which is obviously lacking in bona fide leads to the irritation and annoyance of the other party and this impedes the administration of justice” R Victor Umeh vs. Iwu (2008) 8 NWLR (PT 1089) 225 at 243-244. Thus we declare that to institute an action during the pendency of another action claiming the same relief is an abuse of court process and the only course open to the court is to put an end to the subsequent suit. See Okorodudu vs. Okoronodu (1977) SC2; Abubakar vs. B.O & AP Ltd. (2007) 18 NWLR PT 1066, 319 at 377; NTUKS vs. NPA (2007) 13 NWLR (PT 1051) 392 at 419-420; Ibok vs Honesty II (2007) 6NWLR (PT 1029) 55 at 70.