Osun State High Court Vacates Federal High Court Order: Validating Forum Shopping through Abuse of Judicial Discretion

Forum shopping continues to test the integrity of Nigeria’s judicial system. A recent example is the Osun State High Court’s decision in Suit No. HOS/M.193/2026, which effectively vacated an earlier order of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1233/2026. The ruling raises serious questions about judicial comity, the limits of discretion, and the risk of abuse of process. This article by Dr Amana Mohammed Yusuf examines those issues, and their implications for public confidence in the administration of justice

Introduction 

The Nigerian judicial system, meant to maintain justice and the rule of law, battles with challenges that strain its integrity. The trend of forum shopping, is among the most controversial concerns undermining the justice system’s fairness and effectiveness. Forum shopping uses perceived jurisdictional overlaps and procedural ambiguities, to let litigants deliberately select a court they believe to be more advantageous to their case. Recently, the Osun State High Court in Suit No. HOS/M.193/2026, The Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice of Osun State v First Bank of Nigeria Limited & 29 Ors overturned/vacated an earlier ruling issued by the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1233/2026, Gamji Nigeria Company Limited v Osun State Government (Acting in Concert with Osun State Ministry of Water Resources and Osun Water Corporation) v Re: Guaranty Trust Bank Limited & 32 Ors, providing an especially illuminating though upsetting example of this dynamic. This incident begs serious issues concerning the integrity of court processes, the possibility of misuse of judicial power, and the ongoing difficulty of preserving judicial comity among several levels of courts inside the Nigerian legal system. Within this setting, the Osun State High Court’s ruling seems to be a major display of judicial discretion requiring extensive critical examination; thus, it may be seen not only as a corrective action, but also as a possible validation of forum shopping. The consequences of this decision will be examined in this article together with the underlying legal concepts, possible reasons for strategic litigation, ramifications for judicial precedent, and general influence on public confidence in the administration of the Nigerian justice system. This article hopes to demonstrate how apparent abuse of judicial process and arbitrary exercise of discretion, might promote behaviours that undermine the very pillars of a fair and just legal system, by means of an analysis of the subtleties of jurisdictional limits, the function of judicial discretion, and the ethical concerns underlying such judicial declarations.

2. Understanding Forum Shopping in the Nigerian Context

Forum shopping is the act of selecting a court from among numerous courts (having jurisdiction), in which to submit a complaint. This decision is frequently motivated by the expectation that one court will provide more advantageous substantive law, procedural regulations, or judicial attitudes than another accessible venue. Judicially, in Mailantarki v Tongo & Ors (2017) LPELR-42467(SC), ‘Forum shopping occurs when a party attempts to have his action tried in a particular Court or jurisdiction, where he feels he will receive the most favourable decision or verdict’. The jurisdictional terrain in Nigeria is distinguished by a dual court system: the Federal High Court and the State High Courts, in addition to other specialist courts. The Federal High Court has sole authority over a limited list of issues in Section 251 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, and any other issue the National Assembly may by statute allocate upon it. By contrast, State High Courts have extensive jurisdiction under Section 272 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, with the caveat of the Federal High Court’s or other superior courts of record’s exclusive jurisdiction. 

The possibility for forum shopping comes from the points where the jurisdictions of the Federal High Court and State High Court could overlap or seem to do so, as rightly pointed out by (Wingate & Okoli, 2021). Affected parties, sometimes counselled by attorneys, could deliberately choose the venue they think would provide a quicker settlement, a more beneficial interpretation of the law, or even a more sympathetic Judge. This strategic decision is frequently regarded as an abuse of procedural rights; it is adopted by Lawyers and clients, as a litigation strategy. However, whenever it is used to evade unfavourable decisions, skew legal procedures, or take advantage of perceived flaws in the judicial system, it enters unethical ground. The recent events involving the Osun State High Court and the Federal High Court, therefore, serve as a clear illustration of how a strategic decision, such as forum shopping, results into an abuse of judicial process.

3. Background to the Decisions in Suit No. HOS/M.193/2026, The Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice of Osun State v First Bank of Nigeria Limited & 29 Ors and Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1233/2026, Gamji Nigeria Company Limited v Osun State Government (Acting in Concert with Osun State Ministry of Water Resources and Osun Water Corporation) v Re: Guaranty Trust Bank Limited & 32 Ors

The dispute between the parties Gamji Nigeria Company Limited v Osun State Government, leading to the suits before the Federal High Court Lagos and the Osun State High Court, resulted from an arbitral award delivered on the 24th day of July, 2026. The arbitral award concerns a dispute arising from two water supply engineering contracts between Gamji Nigeria Company Limited, as the Claimant and Osun State Government, as the Respondent. Following the unsuccessful conciliation and mediation efforts by the parties to resolve their dispute amicably through the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Funding Institution, the Islamic Development Bank, the arbitration clause contained in the contractual document was activated and the parties proceeded to arbitration to resolve their dispute. The arbitration was conducted under the applicable provisions of the Arbitration and Mediation Act, 2023, subject to the parties’ arbitration agreement and the applicable contractual terms. The Tribunal after examining the evidence, contractual terms and controlling legal principles, entered an award substantially in favour of the Claimant, Gamji Nigeria Company Limited. The Tribunal made eight (8) specific orders involving various sums of money, ordered 20% post-judgement interest on the judgement sum, and directed the reimbursement of Tribunal operational cost. 

The Claimant, Gamji Nigeria Company Limited, in Suit No. FHC/LAG/CS/1233/2026, Gamji Nigeria Company Limited v Osun State Government (Acting in Concert with Osun State Ministry of Water Resources and Osun Water Corporation) v Re: Guaranty Trust Bank Limited & 32 Ors, approached the Federal High Court Lagos via an application dated the 7th September, 2026, seeking, as stated in the Claimant’s application record, an interim preservatory order, directing the listed financial institutions in Nigeria to immediately place Post No Debit restrictions on the account of Osun State Government, the Respondent, towards the liquidation of the Arbitral Award, which the Claimant stated has become due and enforceable, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice. The Court granted the relief on the 29th September, 2026 and adjourned the case to the 22nd October, 2026 for the hearing of the motion on notice. The Respondent, on 2nd October, 2026, filed an application before the Federal High Court Lagos, seeking to discharge/setting aside the preservatory order of interim injunction made by the court. While the application before the Federal High Court Lagos was pending, the Respondent on the 5th day of October, 2026, filed similar application before the Osun State High Court seeking: An Interim Order of the Honourable Court directing each and every one of  the Defendants (Banks) to remove the restriction and/or the Post No debit that was placed on account of the Osun State Government, as well as restraining each and every one of the Defendants (Banks) from further continuing to place any restriction of any kind, be it Post No Debit and/or any other form of restriction on all and/or each of the accounts of Osun State Government, the Respondent which are domiciled with each of the Defendants (Banks). 

The Osun State High Court on the 13th October, 2026, granted the Respondent, Osun State Government reliefs, as recorded in the court’s order, which specifically ordered that: 1) An Interim Order of this Court is directed each and every one of the Defendants to remove the restriction and/or the Post No Debit that was placed on more than one account of Osun State Government domiciled with each of the Defendants pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice; and 2) I grant an Order of Interim Injunction restraining each and every one of the Defendants from further continuing to place restriction of any kind, be it Post No Debit and/or any other form of restriction, on all and/or each of the accounts of Osun State Government domiciled with each of the Defendants except one of the said accounts which the Defendants have discretion to place restriction on pursuant to the order of the Federal High Court, granted by Hon. Justice D.E. Osiagor of 29th September, 2026.

4. The Jurisdictional Conundrum

Understanding the ramifications, requires a careful consideration of the particular events leading to the Osun State High Court overturning Federal High Court ruling. The broad outlines of the conflict and the courts’ participation point to a scenario whereby a party, having faced an unfavourable outcome or anticipating one in one court, sought a different judicial path. Entrusted with its particular statutory powers, the Federal High Court most definitely issued an order based on its interpretation of the case before it. The Osun State High Court, on the other hand, issued an order overturning or contradicting the Federal High Court’s directive, a court of coordinate jurisdiction. 

It is respectfully submitted that the jurisdictional conundrum is: whether Osun State High Court can arbitrarily and abusively set aside an order of the Federal High Court, a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction? Alternatively, did the Osun State High Court utilise its discretion arbitrarily and abusively, in a manner that, despite being legally aware of the order of the Federal High Court, granted by Hon. Justice D.E. Osiagor of 29th September, 2026, practically enabled forum shopping? It has been held by the Apex Court in plethora of cases that ‘except in cases of lack of jurisdiction, nullity, or fraud, a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction has no jurisdiction to set aside the decision of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. It cannot make an order completely in conflict with a subsisting order of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, over the same subject matter or on identical prayers’, A.-G., Fed. v Kashamu (No.2) (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1711) 281; Customary Court of Appeal, Edo State v Aguele (2018) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1607) 369 at . 395, paras. D-E, SC; Orji v Chima & Ors (2023) LPELR-60345(SC). This is apparently so, because a court of coordinate jurisdiction cannot sit on appeal over the judgement or order of a court of coordinate jurisdiction, Eneh v NDIC & Ors (2018) LPELR-44902(SC) (Pp 23 – 25 Paras F – D); In Re: Alhaji Abdulhafiz Onigemo & Anor (2025) LPELR-82642(CA) (Pp 14 – 14 Paras C – D). Although, Wingate & Okoli have argued that the allocation of jurisdiction for court intervention in arbitration is contested, in the cases leading to this article, it is respectfully contended that the acceptable circumstances or conditions where a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction may set aside the order or proceedings of another court of co-ordinate jurisdiction were not present. Indeed, the proper cause of action open to the Osun State Government, the party dissatisfied with the order or the decision of the Federal High Court, was to apply before the same court to have the order set aside or to go on appeal, and not to file multiple applications seeking the same reliefs before different courts. 

The order of the Osun State High Court, the result of a multiple similar applications filed on different dates but pending concurrently is especially worrisome, since it demonstrates an intentional evasion of a prior court ruling by the tactical use of its discretionary powers. Such arbitrary and abusive exercise of discretion undermines the authority of the courts, by giving the impression of judicial disorder and encouraging the party in whose favour it was given, to view court rulings as only recommendations instead of binding statements. It is most respectfully contended that the capacity of one court to independently annul the order of another, especially when it seems to be a strategic move, points out a possible weakness in the judicial system that might be taken advantage of.

5. Arbitrary Use and Abuse of Judicial Discretion

When a State High Court sets aside a Federal High Court order, particularly under circumstances indicative of forum shopping, this signals a possible misuse of judicial power. Within the limits of the law, judicial discretion is the authority of a judge to determine the particular facts and circumstances of a case. It enables Judges to customise justice to particular cases, and is essential to a flexible and fair legal system. But, discretion can be misused if it is used in an arbitrary, fickle manner or for grounds not intended by the law, Emueze & Ors v Governor of Delta State & Ors (2014) LPELR-23201(CA); Eye v F.R.N. (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1619) 495 at P. 511, para. A; Galadima v State (2025) LPELR-81256(CA); Ayih & Ors v Jatau & Ors (2024) LPELR-61775(CA). The exercise of the discretion by the Osun State High Court, it is most respectfully argued, enters the realm of abuse and arbitrariness, as the Federal High Court at the time of the ruling was properly seised of the jurisdiction to make a preservatory order or seemed to be a direct reaction to a party, the Osun State Government, attempting to avoid the Federal High Court’s ruling. It goes without saying that the urge by a court to arbitrarily and abusively use its discretion to hasten alleged justice or injustice or to favour a specific party is not judicial or judicious, and therefore, wrong. This undermines judicial processes and amounts to a display of judicial rascality, NBC Plc v Kaybrown (Nig) Ltd (2018) LPELR-46959(CA) (Pp 16 – 17 Paras A – E). This is contextually so, because the court was already aware even from the Osun State Government application that issues have been joined before the Federal High Court Lagos, or better still the Osun State High Court ought to enquire from the Learned Senior Counsel, whether similar application was pending before the court that made the order. It indicates and sends an erroneous message to the legal community and the public, that court orders are not always definitive and can be reversed by another court through the instrumentality of forum shopping. The consequences are grave, as this might create a chaotic legal scene whereby the stability and predictability of law are jeopardised. Particularly pernicious is the validation of forum shopping by such methods since it disguises itself as legal judicial conduct, so challenging is difficult and even harder to correct. It fosters a society of procedural gamesmanship, instead of one of substantive justice.

6. Implications of Arbitrary and Abusive Use of Judicial Discretion for Judicial Precedent and Public Trust

There are broad consequences when a State High Court vacates a Federal High Court order, particularly when it seems to support forum shopping using judicial discretion improperly. First of all, it seriously erodes the nature of the sometimes-jurisdictional overlap of the two courts in the Nigerian court system hierarchy. In other words, it misrepresents the Osun State High Court as being superior to the Federal High Court, within the broader scope of jurisdiction of courts in Nigeria. When a State High Court overturns or invalidates a Federal High Court decision, there might be uncertainty as to which decision prevails. This contradiction undermines the authoritative power of judicial pronouncements and complicates legal professionals’ and the public’s dependence on established precedents.

Secondarily, arbitrary and abusive use of judicial discretion, damage public faith in the legal system. Justice is administered on the basis of impartiality, fairness, and predictability. Party’s confidence in the courts decreases when they think the system can be exploited by means of strategic forum selection and perhaps, prejudiced judicial /discretion. This might cause cynicism to grow, a resistance to interact with the legal system, and the belief that justice is prone to change rather than being blind. A judicial system that seems to be sporadically applying the law or let its procedures be compromised by procedural gamesmanship, runs the danger of losing its credibility in the public’s perception.

Additionally, arbitrary and abusive use of judicial discretion can promote more forum shopping. Potentially, a litigant who successfully uses one court to overturn an order from another encourages others to follow suit. This might result in a torrent of lawsuits meant to re-litigate resolved issues in several venues, therefore taxing the courts and diverting judicial resources from real conflicts. The legal profession itself may suffer negatively, as practitioners may feel driven to participate in tactical trickery rather than concentrate on the merits of their clients’ cases. Therefore, the ruling of the Osun State High Court is not only an isolated legal conflict, but also a case study on how public trust and the integrity of the judicial system might be greatly impacted by judicial rulings, particularly those involving the misuse of discretion.

7. Addressing Forum Shopping: Towards a More Robust Judicial Framework

The problem presented by forum shopping, as shown by the Osun State High Court’s vacating of the Federal High Court’s ruling, calls for a multi-pronged strategy to enhance the Nigerian judicial system. First, it is imperative to clearly define the boundaries of authority between State and Federal courts. Either by legislative change or by regular and authoritative interpretations by the higher courts, especially the Supreme Court, uncertainties in legislation conferring jurisdiction should be resolved. When jurisdictional limits are precisely defined, the chances for litigants to take advantage of apparent overlaps are greatly decreased.

Second, Nigerian courts, with respect, should apply the alternative theory of forum non conveniens more often and vigorously. Forum non conveniens doctrine has its roots in English common law and the United States case of Gulf Oil Corp. v Gilbert (330 US 501) [1947), to address the problems of jurisdiction and venue. The doctrine is a judicial instrument that enables courts to dismiss a case, when there is an easily accessible and more appropriate alternative forum to determine/resolve the dispute. Rooted in the court’s inherent ability to run its docket and guarantee the fair administration of justice, this equitable approach lets a court reject jurisdiction even when it formally has it. The current formulation of the doctrine tilt heavily in balancing and enforcing the parties chosen venue in resolving their contractual dispute, Atlantic marine Construction Co. v United States District Court (28 USC 1404(a) [2013). In the contractual agreement of the parties to the case leading to the arbitration, Lagos state was the preferred venue chosen by the parties. The hypothesis and application of the forum non conveniens doctrine in Nigeria being suggested by this article, is a key tool for courts to control their dockets and advance the fair and effective administration of justice. Although not a statutory right, it can be used by Judges to refuse jurisdiction in cases where an appropriate and more practical substitute venue is available. By so doing, courts can stop bothersome lawsuits, prevent unneeded strain on the court system, and guarantee that conflicts are settled in the most suitable location by balancing public and private interests. Although it does not give a court free licence to decline jurisdiction, it offers a crucial tool to guarantee that cases are heard in the venue where they may be most easily and fairly adjudicated. Courts should be allowed and urged to take into account variables like, the peculiarities of facts of the case and the agreements of parties. This would discourage forum shopping, as litigants would have less chance of moving their cases to a court that is not really more suitable.

Thirdly, it is imperative to encourage judicial comity and inter-court communication. Although direct appeals are the conventional approach for contesting court rulings, encouraging a culture whereby courts of adjacent jurisdiction respect one another’s judgements or orders and strive to prevent contradictory decisions, is absolutely critical. This may be attained through formal institutionally governed channels, for inter-court communication. If a court is thinking about challenging or overturning an order from another court, it should proceed with extreme care, making sure that its decisions are firmly based on established legal norms and not on tactical concerns.

Lastly, judicial ethics and accountability have roles to play. Judges must resist the urge to use their discretion in a way that seems to help particular parties, or to make procedural manipulation easier. Continuous judicial education on jurisdictional issues, moral norms, and the repercussions of misusing judicial power might assist to support the ideals of justice and impartiality. Moreover, strong systems for handling arbitrary and abuse of judicial discretion, including choices that seem arbitrary or politically driven, can act as a deterrent and support public trust maintenance. The legal community also have a duty to reject and expose cases of flagrant forum shopping, and to maintain high ethical standards in their legal conduct.

8. Conclusion

The Osun State High Court’s overturning of a Federal High Court order is a major judicial event with major consequences for the Nigerian legal system. Although the precise merits of the matter need careful investigation, the larger background indicates a disturbing situation whereby the possible misuse of judicial discretion may have enabled forum shopping. This occurrence highlights the ongoing issues of jurisdictional ambiguity, the delicate interplay of judicial authority, and the critical need of judicial comity. The ramifications for judicial precedent are significant, probably undermining the legitimacy of court rulings and generating legal instability. More crucially, such events can significantly undermine public confidence in the Judiciary, a foundation of democratic government. 

Tackling forum shopping therefore, calls for a coordinated approach to improve jurisdictional clarity, reinforce the application of concepts like forum non conveniens, promote more judicial comity, and maintain the highest moral and accountability standards for the Judiciary. The ruling of the Osun State High Court reminds us critically that the integrity of the justice system rests, not only on the letter of the law, but also on the way judicial discretion is used, and the respect given to the decisions of other courts. Without these protections, the quest for justice runs the risk of being eclipsed by procedural gamesmanship, so eroding the rule of law and public trust in the judicial process.  

Dr Amana Mohammed Yusuf, Department of international Law and Jurisprudence, Faculty of Law, Bayero University Kano. Currently on Sabbatical Leave at Skyline University Nigeria, Kano as the Dean of the School of Legal Studies. 08033340192 myamana.ilj@buk.edu.ng; amankg77@gmail.com; amana.yusuf@sun.edu.ng