8.3.8. The law frowns on multiplicity of suits, and rather favors consolidated or joint actions which would bring closure to matters in a comprehensive manner and not in piece meal. A party is expected to bring all his claims belonging to the same subject matter at once and at the same time. If he chooses to bring them by piece meal, he may be faced with the doctrine of res judicata. See the case, Yakubu vs. - 32 AS CO Ltd. (2010) 2 NWLR (pt 1177) 167. To sustain a charge of abuse of court process, there must coexist inter alia (a.) a multiplicity of suits (b.) between the same opponents (c.) on the same subject matter and (d.) on the same issues. Also, the court will consider the contents of both suits and determine whether they are aimed at achieving the same purpose. See, Agwasim vs. Ojichie (2994) 10 NWLR (PT 992) 613. From a careful examination, these criteria are all present in this instant case. 8.3.9. We observe that the Applicants in the previous suits sued for themselves and all the members of the communities affected by landmines except where a person opposes the suit; in this case, are we to take it that these Applicants are or were opposed to the previous suits herein referred to? We think not; that is, they were certainly aware of these suits and did not join in, but have elected to bring their claims in this separate suit, which we find to be very vexatious and will not be countenanced by this Court. 8.3.10. The Respondents have contended that the Applicants in this case were aware of the filing of these prior suits and did nothing to join in and pursue their own interests but have waited until these other suits have been filed before coming forward. In the one instance, the Respondents have said that these Applicants are part of the Applicants in the other cases and are only trying to extort money from the Respondents and benefit more than once. The Respondents specifically cite case of Vincent Agu and 19 0thers which has progressed to an advanced stage where the parties entered into negotiating a settlement, which is to be reported to this Court on the progress of the terms of their agreement and settlement. 9. CONCLUSION 9.1. It is a matter of historical fact and public knowledge, of which this Court takes judicial notice, that there was a civil war in Nigeria between 1967 and 1970 and obviously there were damages and destruction on all sides to the war, with a lot of remnants left behind. It is also not deniable that there is need to clean up the environment and restore the communities to a habitable state. It has not been controverted by the Applicants that the Government undertook to do just that and proceeded to set up the Task Force to evaluate and assess the impact and extent of the environmental damage and degradation. It is also not denied by the Applicants