Justice Delivery and Prevailing Conflicting Judgments: An Imperative for Urgent Judicial Reforms

I had the rare  privilege of participating as a panelist at the Biennial Law Week of the Nigerian Bar Association, Anaocha Branch, Anambra State this weekend,  where distinguished Professors of Law, Justices of various courts, Senior Advocates of Nigeria, and legal scholars gathered to interrogate one of the most pressing challenges confronting the Nigerian judiciary today: "the growing menace of conflicting judgments and the urgent need for judicial reforms".

The topic was not only timely but fundamental to the survival of public confidence in the administration of justice. A judiciary that speaks with contradictory voices weakens the rule of law, undermines democratic stability, and erodes citizens’ faith in the courts as impartial arbiters of justice.

Conflicting judgments occur when courts of coordinate jurisdiction issue inconsistent decisions on the same subject matter, thereby creating uncertainty and confusion in the legal system. Unfortunately, this disturbing phenomenon has become increasingly prevalent in our jurisprudence, particularly in politically sensitive matters and electoral disputes.

During my presentation, I cited two glaring examples that underscore why the practices of conflicting judgments, forum shopping, and abuse of ex parte orders must not be allowed to fester any longer in Nigeria’s legal system.

The first was the celebrated case involving the late Justice Ikpeme in the 1990s. Her dangerous and repugnant judicial order was  immediately countered by subsequent ex parte orders issued by courts of coordinate jurisdiction in the different States of Nigeria. Those orders were procured by the then State governors of those states where those contradictory orders were given.  That incident remains one of the earliest and most notorious examples of judicial inconsistency that embarrassed the judiciary and exposed the dangerous abuse of interim judicial processes.

The second example was the recent wave of ex parte orders and conflicting rulings arising from the crisis within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), particularly those that culminated in the nullification of the party’s convention in Oyo State. Different courts issued divergent orders on the same political dispute, thereby escalating confusion and public distrust.

It is on record, and one is pleased about it, that the Supreme Court of Nigeria took time to strongly deprecate such unholy practices rearing their ugly heads in our jurisprudence.

 Such judicial contradictions not only destabilize political institutions but also project the judiciary as vulnerable to manipulation and forum shopping.

Forum shopping, whereby litigants deliberately seek out courts perceived to be sympathetic to their interests, has become a recurring challenge in our legal system. This practice is often aided by lawyers who exploit procedural loopholes and jurisdictional overlaps to obtain favourable ex parte orders. The result is a multiplicity of suits and conflicting decisions that ridicule the administration of justice.

Ex parte orders, by their nature, are intended to be exceptional remedies granted only in cases of extreme urgency. Sadly, they have become regular weapons in political and commercial disputes. Courts now frequently issue far-reaching ex parte orders affecting substantive rights without hearing the other side. This dangerous trend has contributed immensely to conflicting judgments and judicial embarrassment.

The implications are grave. Once the public begins to perceive judicial outcomes as inconsistent, politically influenced, or purchasable, confidence in the judiciary diminishes. The judiciary, traditionally regarded as the last hope of the common man, risks losing its moral authority and institutional legitimacy.

It was therefore unanimously agreed at the Law Week that urgent reforms are imperative.

First, there must be stronger disciplinary measures against both erring judicial officers and legal practitioners. Judges who recklessly issue conflicting orders in disregard of judicial precedent and comity should face prompt investigation and sanctions by the National Judicial Council. Likewise, lawyers who encourage forum shopping, multiplicity of actions, and abuse of court process must be disciplined by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. Without accountability, the abuse will continue unchecked.

Second, structural reforms within the judiciary are necessary. There should be improved judicial coordination and technology-driven case management systems capable of detecting related suits filed in different jurisdictions. This will help prevent multiple courts from entertaining the same disputes simultaneously.

Third, substantive and procedural amendments to our laws must be undertaken. The issuance of ex parte orders should be more strictly regulated, particularly in political matters and electoral disputes. Clear limitations should be imposed on the duration and scope of such orders. In addition, courts of coordinate jurisdiction must be statutorily restrained from issuing orders capable of undermining existing decisions of another court of equal status.

Finally, judicial reforms must focus on restoring integrity, consistency, and public confidence in the administration of justice. The judiciary must speak with one coherent voice if democracy and the rule of law are to thrive.

The future of our legal system depends not merely on the existence of courts, but on the credibility, consistency, and integrity of the justice they dispense. Nigeria cannot afford a judicial system where conflicting judgments become normalized. 

As 2027 general election draws near,  the  time to act is now before it becomes too late.

Monday Onyekachi Ubani SAN 

Legal Practitioner/Policy Analyst.