ORS. (1977) 4 S.C. 29; AND A.F. SONEKAN V. P.G. SMITH (1967) 1 ALL NLR 3 29 ).” “In ERONINI V. IHEUKU supra, the Supreme Court held; “In such circumstances, withdrawal of the suit from court could never be nor could it ever be conceived as of right or automatic. It was not for the learned counsel in the court below to appear to dictate to the court what order to make in consequence of his application for leave. That was a matter exclusively for the court in due deliberate exercise of its judicial discretion which naturally and inevitably must entail the weighing of all the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and the balancing of the interest of the parties involved including the balance of convenience and disadvantages which might be suffered by any of the parties concerned. It is after the court shall have given consideration to such matters that it can arrive at what is undeniably a difficult decision which must - 14 appear reasonable in all the circumstances of a particular case. It is then the duty of the court on the principles stated above to decide: to grant leave for the suit to be withdrawn simply on terms that the same be struck out subject to payment of costs; or to grant leave for the suit to be withdrawn subject to the imposition of certain conditions to be fulfilled before a fresh suit concerning the same subject matter and the same parties may be instituted in the court; or to refuse such leave in which case the suit must be dismissed also on terms as to costs.” “We humbly submit that the case of the Applicant is no longer dominis litis because parties in the suit have joined issues by filing their defences to the suit. The proper order for the court to make in the circumstance is dismissal. It is settled law that there has to be an end to litigation. If every litigant is allowed to withdraw his suit at will and file another afterwards even when issues are joined, then there will be no end to litigation.” “In the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL OF RIVERS STATE V. UDE (2001) SC 423, the supreme court of Nigeria per Aloysius IyorgyerKatsina-Alu, J.S.C. held; “I cannot agree more. It seems to me that if every party who is given ample opportunity to prosecute his case, contemptuously ignores the Court, he cannot turn round on appeal and claim that he was not given a fair hearing. Such a party does not deserve further indulgence. There must be an end to litigation.” “CONCLUSION:” “In conclusion, the 4th and 5th respondents have proved that issues have joined in the suit and as such the proper order to make in the circumstance is dismissal. The Respondents have filed the various defences to the suit. There has to be an end to litigation. The Applicants filed the suit 17 months before they purportedly