FRANCHAL NIGERIA LTD. V NIGERIA ARAB BANK LTD.
June 26, 2025ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION V A.I.C. LIMITED
June 26, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2000) Legalpedia (SC) 28217
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jun 2, 2000
Suit Number: SC.180/1994
CORAM
A. G. KARIBI-WHYTE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
B. M. E. OGUNDARE JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. O. EJIWUNMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ARCHBOLD EBBA FREDERICK EBBAH MONDAY EBBAHFRIDAY EBBA (For themselves and on behalf of EBBAH FAMILY) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant’s grandmother was approached by alien traders for a piece of land and she mandated Chief Ogodo to negotiate for the land on her behalf. Both of them enjoyed the rent from the land. However, the descendants of Ogodo (Respondents) presently enjoy the rent to the exclusion of the Appellant.
HELD
The Court ordered the Respondents to render due account of rent received and pay to the Appellant their share of the rent. The Court also restrained the Respondents from receiving further rent to the exclusion of the appellant.
ISSUES
whether issue estoppel as claimed by the Appellants arose, and was decided in Suit No. S/23/ 74 so as to entitle the Appellants to judgment in the present case.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY LOWER COURTS
“An appellate Court would not easily interfere with the judgment of the Court below, yet where the judgment of the Court below was reached either upon erroneous inference drawn from findings of facts or that its application of the law to properly found facts is perverse and for erroneous, then the appellate Court has a duty to intervene to correct the injustice so caused”. Per A. O. Ejiwunmi JSC.
APPLICATION OF RES JUDICATA
“The plea of res judicata applies, except in special case, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.” Per Wegram V-C
INGREDIENTS OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL
“For issue estoppel to apply the following ingredients must be present-
i. The parties must be the same in the previous and present actions;
ii. The same question that was decided in the previous action must arise in the present action in respect of the same subject matter and
iii. That question must be a final decision of a competent Court.” Per M.E Ogundare, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Henderson v. Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 114 reported in 67 E.R. 313 at page 319. 2. Hoystead and Others v. Commissioner of Taxation [1926] AC 155 at page 170 3. A.G. Ijele v. A.G. Leventis & Co. Ltd. [1961] ANLR. 762 at page 769.4. Fadiora v. Gbadebo [1978] 3 S.C. 219, 228-95. Qutram v. Morewood (1803) 3 East 346].6. Fatoyinbo v. Williams (1956] 1 FSC. 87; [1956] SCNLR. 274; 7. Sarakatu J.Amida v. Oshoboja [1984] 7 SC. 68; 8. Finnih v. Imade [1992] 1 NWLR. (pt. 219) 511.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Evidence Act, Cap, 112 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990
