It is trite law that court will deny discovery if the party is using it as a fishing expedition to ascertain information for the purpose of starting an action or developing a defence. A court is responsible for protecting against the unreasonable investigation into a party’s affairs and must deny discovery if it is intended to annoy, embarrass, oppress or injure the parties or the witnesses who will be subjected to it. A court will stop this discovery when used in bad faith. I think this is such a case. The concept of abuse of court process is not very precise but the Nigerian case of R-Benkay Nigeria Ltd Vs Cadbury Nigerian PLC SC 29 of 2006 outlines circumstances which give rise to abuse of court process and these include: a) Instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues or a multiplicity of actions on the same matter between the same parties where there exists a right to begin the action. b) Instituting different actions between the same parties simultaneously in different courts even though on different grounds. c) Where two similar processes are used in respect of the exercise of the same right for example a cross appeal and the respondents’ notice. d) Where an application for adjournment is sought by a party to an action to bring an application to court for leave to raise issues of fact already decided by a lower court. e) Where there is no law supporting a court process or where it is premised on frivolity and recklessness. f) Where a party has adopted the system of forum shopping in the enforcement of a conceived right. g) Where two actions are commenced, the second asking for a relief which may have been obtained in the first. In that case the second action is prima facie, vexatious and an abuse of court process. 10