Attorney General v Badibanga

The material before the court demonstrates that Mr Badibanga has habitually and persistently and without reasonable ground instituted vexatious civil and criminal proceedings and applications; an all proceedings order under section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 is warranted to prevent further abuse.

Parties: Claimant: Her Majesty's Attorney General; Defendant: Kay Etienne Badibanga
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 17 February 2003
Procedural Posture: Application for All Proceedings Order / Judgment
Outcome: All proceedings order made under section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 against Mr Badibanga.
Legal Topics: Vexatious Litigation, All Proceedings Order, Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981

Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure Vexatious Litigation All Proceedings Order Section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

Her Majesty's Attorney General

Claimant

Kay Etienne Badibanga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for All Proceedings Order / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether Mr Badibanga has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without reasonable ground
2 Whether an all proceedings order under section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 should be made

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

All proceedings order made under section 42 Supreme Court Act 1981 against Mr Badibanga.

Orders

Mr Badibanga prohibited from instituting civil or criminal proceedings without leave of the court.
No order as to costs.