CORAM
DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE
IDRIS LEGBO KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT (Read the Leading Judgment)
OKWUCHUKWU OPENE
PARTIES
CHIEF EDET BROWNCHIEF OFFIONG ETIM EFIOMEWA NSA HENSHAWCHIEF EDEDEM EFFIONGEFFIONG ETIMCHIEF LAWRENCE OKON ETIM (For themselves and as representing the entire families of Umanah Efio Odiong Ene, Okon Ene Okon Efiom, Nkese Akim, Etim Akabom, And Arit Enoh ) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
By a writ of summons and statement of claim filed on the 8th day of December 1995, the Appellants as Plaintiffs commenced an action at the Calabar High Court against the Respondents as Defendants claiming against them for an account, damages and an injunction in respect of the management of palm fruits harvested from designated area of the communal land of Ikot Effiom village in the AkpabuyoLocal Government Area of Cross River State to which village both parties belong. The Respondents as Defendants filed a statement of defence denying the claim and thereafter a motion on notice praying for the dismissal of the suit on grounds of estoppel, statute bar, abuse of court process and want of locus standi. In a reserved ruling the plea of res judicata was upheld and the Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ claim dismissed. Dissatisfied by the ruling, the Appellants have filed an appeal?
HELD
Appeal allowed.
ISSUES
Whether or not the alleged consent judgment in Suit NO.C/124/76 satisfies the conditions for a successful plea of res judicata as to vitiate Suit No C/653/95 from which this appeal is predicated.Whether the parties in the present case are the same as the parties in the earlier consent judgment in suit No. C/124/76.?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
RES JUDICATA- EFFECT OF A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF
“A successful plea of res judicata ousts the jurisdiction of the court before which it is raised. A plaintiff cannot be seen to be raising a plea that will oust the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the action he has brought before the court. Generally the plea is a shield rather than a sword. PER DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JCA
RES JUDICATA-WHEN RES JUDICATA WOULD LIE IN AN ACTION BROUGHT IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY
“It is trite law that when an action is brought by a plaintiff in a representative capacity against another person personally and the action is prosecuted whereby the defendant succeeds, that judgment is res judicata to the extent that it determines the personal rights of the defendant in the subject matter of the action but it is not res judicata of any interest, the defendant may later represent in an action brought against him in a representative capacity”. PER DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JCA
PLEA OF RES JUDICATA-HOW SUSTAINED
“It has been laid down in a long line of cases that to sustain a plea of res judicata. It must be shown;
(a) That the parties in the previous and present suits are the same.
(b) That the claim and issue in the previous suit are the same as those in the present suit.
(c) That the subject matter of litigation in the previous and present suits are identical”. PER DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JCA
CONSENT JUDGEMENT-WHETHER SIGNATURE BY PARTIES DETERMINES VALIDITY-MEANING OF
“It is a misconception for the Appellants to think that for consent judgment to be valid, it has to be signed by the consenting parties. A consent judgment is a judgment of court embodying the terms of settlement agreed to by the parties and filed in the registry of the court. It does not bear the signatures of the consenting parties as erroneously thought by learned counsel for the Appellants”. PER DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JCA
PLEA OF RES JUDICATA- APPLICABILITY OF
“The plea of res judicata applies except in special cases not only to points which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment but to every point which properly belongs to the subject of litigation and which the parties exercising reasonable diligence might have brought forward at the time”. PER DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JCA
ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATA-PRINCIPLE GUIDING ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATA
The principles underlining the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam are:
“(a) Interest reiplicae ut sit fines litium .It is for the common good that there should be an end to litigation.
(b) Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa – No one should be sued twice on the same ground. No one shall be twice vexed for one and the same cause.” PER DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JCA
BRIEFS OF ARGUMENTS- ITS CONFINES
“Arguments in a brief of argument must be related to and confined to the issues formulated for determination based on the ground of appeal challenging the judgment appealed against. Any argument to the contrary is irrelevant and ought to be discountenanced”. PER DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JCA
CAUSE OF ACTION- IN A PRESENT SUIT BUT PREVIOULY DETERMINED – EFFECT OF
“It had long been established that if a cause of action in a present suit had been determined in a previous suit, that cause of action becomes merged in the judgment – Transit in rem judicata. PER DENNIS ONYEJIFE EDOZIE, JCA
CASES CITED
Aladegbemi v. Fesamade (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt.81) 129Board of Customs& Excise v. Alhaji Ibrahim Bardo (1982) 10 SC 48 at 131Fediore v. Gbadebo (1978) 3 SC 219Idowu Alase and Ors v. Olori Ilu (1965) N.M.L.R. 66Nkanu v. Onum (1977) SC 13Oduka v. Kasumu (1968) N.M.L.R. 28,Oke v. Atoloye (1986) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.15) 241 at 260Richard Ezeanya b Ors v. Gabriel Okeke b Drs (1995) 4 N.W.L.R.(Pt.388) 142 at 161.Shitta-Bay and ors v. Lagos Executive Development Board and Ors (1962) 1 All NLR 373Yoye v. Lawani Olubode b 2 Ors (1974) 10 SC 209?
STATUTES REFERRED TO