Legalpedia Citation: (2025-01) Legalpedia 01245 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Fri Jan 24, 2025

Suit Number: SC.162/2007

CORAM

Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Emmanuel Akomaye Agim Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chioma Egondu Nwosu -Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Haruna Simon TsammaniJustice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

1. CHIEF PAUL OTUYAH
2. PIUS ANOCHIE
3. OKPOR OKWAGWU (for themselves and on behalf of Benekuku family of Kwale)

APPELLANTS

1. CHIEF VINCENT OLIE
2. CHIEF SYLVANUS ODINI EJECHI
3. SYLVESTER OJI (for themselves and on behalf of Umusadege Family and/or Quarters of Utaagba-Ogbe, Ndokwa Local Government Area)
4. NIGERIAN AGIP OIL CO. LIMITED

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CIVIL PROCEDURE, JUDGMENT AND ORDERS, ESTOPPEL, EVIDENCE, LITIGATION PRACTICE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, RES JUDICATA, LAND LAW, REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

This case revolves around a long-standing land dispute between the Benekuku family and the Umusadege family of Kwale. The dispute had previously led to consolidated suits (UHC/43/71, UHC/50/71, and UHC/70/71) which were resolved through a consent judgment on October 19, 1972. In this consent judgment, it was agreed that the Benekuku family was one of seven families making up the Umusadege family, and that the disputed land was jointly owned by all seven families. The judgment further specified that the land was vested in the Okpala-Uku of Umusadege Quarters for the benefit of all seven families, and that compensation for the land, including payments from Nigerian Agip Oil Company Limited, would be shared equally among the seven families.

Dissatisfied with the arrangement, the Appellants (Benekuku family) filed Suit No. HCK/26/76 in 1975, seeking to set aside the consent judgment on grounds of fraud and claiming exclusive ownership of the disputed land. This suit was dismissed by the High Court. In 1981, the Appellants filed another suit (HCK/20/81) seeking similar reliefs, which was dismissed on grounds of estoppel per rem judicatam. The Appellants appealed the judgment in HCK/26/76 to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal but noted that the dismissal should “not apply to the rights of the parties to sue under the consent judgment.”

Relying on this statement, the Appellants instituted Suit No. HCK/13/87, claiming that the Respondents had violated the fundamental terms of the consent judgment, had refused to perform their legal obligations, and had induced the Appellants to enter into the consent judgment through misrepresentation and fraud. They again sought to set aside the consent judgment. The Respondents raised preliminary objections based on estoppel per rem judicatam, which were dismissed by the trial court but upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

1. The appeal was dismissed as lacking in merit.
2. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal that Suit No. HCK/13/87 was caught by the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam.
3. The Supreme Court held that the parties in the three suits were the same, as they were acting in representative capacities for their respective families.
4. The Supreme Court held that the claims in the three suits were substantively the same, all aimed at setting aside the same consent judgment.
5. The decisions in Suit Nos. HCK/26/76 and HCK/20/81 were final decisions of a court of competent jurisdiction, and thus could sustain a plea of res judicata.
6. Costs of two million naira (N2,000,000.00) were awarded against the Appellants in favor of the 1st-3rd Respondents.

ISSUES

1. Whether the parties in Suit Nos. HCK/26/76, HCK/20/81, and HCK/13/87 are different, contrary to the decision of the Court of Appeal that they are the same.
2. Whether the reliefs sought in Suit Nos. HCK/26/76, HCK/20/81, and HCK/13/87 are the same to establish res judicata or not.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PRINCIPLES BEHIND RES JUDICATA – NEED FOR AN END TO LITIGATION:

“Now,
the principles or reasoning behind the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam
is that there is a need for an end to litigation. In other words, that it is in
the public interest that there should be an end to litigation. Therefore, where
a cause of action has been canvassed and decided to finality between the same
parties or their privies, that should be the end of the of the matter. In such
a situation, the parties and/or their privies are precluded from relitigating
the same cause of action.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.

STATUTORY BASIS OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM – SECTION 173 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011:

“Where
estoppel per rem judicatam is found to apply in a particular the case, the
jurisdiction of Court is effectively ousted. Thus Section 173 of the Evidence
Act, 2011 has codified the well-established principle of estoppel per rem
judicatam when it stipulates that: ‘Every judgment is conclusive proof, as
against parties and privies, of facts directly in issue in the case, actually
decided by the Court and appearing from the judgment itself to be the ground on
which it was based; unless evidence was admitted in the action in which the
judgment was delivered which is excluded in the action in which that judgment
is intended to be proved.'” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.

ELEMENTS OF RES JUDICATA – PREREQUISITES FOR A SUCCESSFUL PLEA:

“That
being so, for a party so succeed in a plea of estoppel per rem judicata, he
must show that: (a) the parties or their privies are the same in both the
previous and present proceedings; (b) the claim in dispute in both proceedings
is the same; (c) the subject matter on res of the litigation in the previous
and present proceedings is the same; (d) the decision relied upon to support
the plea of estopel per rem judicatam must be valid, subsisting and final. (e)
The Court that decided on the precious decision relied upon for the plea of
estoppel per rem judicatam must be a Court of competent jurisdiction.” –
Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.

NATURE OF REPRESENTATIVE ACTION – IDENTITY OF PARTIES:

“A
cursory reflection on the parties as listed on the three suits Nos. HCK/26/76,
HCK/20/81 and HCK/13/87 will disclose that the parties in the three suits are
the same. This can be reasoned from the nature of a representative action or
suit. It is clear that representative action or suit arises so as to enable the
claim of a number of persons against the same defendant or defendants to be
determined in one suit. The named persons on the writ sue for themselves and
for the other members of the group who are not specifically named on the
writ.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.

PURPOSE OF REPRESENTATIVE ACTION – RULE OF CONVENIENCE

“The
named persons on the writ may be considered as agents of members of the group
who are not named specifically on the writ. All the law requires is that both
the named and unnamed members of the group should have a common interest or
grievance as the case may be. Therefore, the rule which permits representative
actions is a rule of convenience because, to name all members of the group on
the writ may make the list of parties to be unwieldy and cumbersome or awkward.
Thus, for the sake of the efficacy of the suit, the true party in the suit, in
the eye of the law, is the group being represented and not the individuals so
named on the writ.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.

DETERMINATION OF RELEVANT CLAIMS IN RES JUDICATA – FOCUS ON RADICAL CLAIMS:

“With
regards to the claims in the three actions, the law is that in determining res
judicata, it is the radical claims in the matters that must be looked into as
the sole determining factor of it and not the subsidiary or peripheral
claims.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS – EFFECT ON RES JUDICATA:

“Now,
there is no doubt that Suit No. HCK/20/81 was struck out on the grounds that
the subject matter and issues had been decided by the same High Court in Suit
No. HCK/26/76 and on ground of lack of jurisdiction. That Ruling was not
appealed against, since it was not appealed against, it became a final decision
such that it can operate as res judicatam.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI,
J.S.C

CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO APPEAL – ACCEPTANCE OF DECISION

“There
was no appeal against the ruling of the High Court in HCK/20/81, therefore,
that ruling remains valid and subsisting. Such ruling can validly sustain a
plea of res judicata as in the absence of any appeal it is a final decision of
the Court. This is so because the settled principle of law is that there are
dire consequences against a party damnified by such a decision, where such
party has failed to appeal against such finding, holding or decision of a
competent Court. In such circumstances, the parties to the case are taken to
have accepted the decision as correct and binding on them.” – Per HARUNA
SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C

PROPER INTERPRETATION OF COURT OF APPEAL’S PRONOUNCEMENT – LIMITATION ON RELITIGATION:

“I
do not think and this should not be interpreted to mean that matters can be
relitigated over and over. That certainly was not what the Court of Appeal
meant, having dismissed the Respondent’s claim in HCK/26/76 under the four
heads in their further amended statement of claim, which is of the same subject
matter with HCK/13/87 the subject matter of the present appeal.” – Per
HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.

SIMILARITY OF CLAIMS – SUBSTANCE OVER FORM IN DETERMINING RES JUDICATA:

“A
close look at the claims in Suit Nos. HCK/26/76 and HCK/13/87 will reveal
affinity between the claims and reliefs sought in both suits. In both suits,
the Plaintiffs/Appellants have complained about the fidelity of the 1st – 3rd
Respondents in observing the terms of the consent judgment. The only
distinction in those claims is that they have been differently couched or
worded but both claims are geared towards setting aside the consent
judgement.” – Per HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, J.S.C.

PUBLIC INTEREST IN FINALITY OF LITIGATION – THERE MUST BE AN END TO LITIGATION:

“There
is no doubt that the litigants on the one part and the other part filed the
various actions in representative capacities and have pursued different actions
and appeals at one time or the other on the same cause of action which is the
enforcement of the consent agreement in the consolidated suits UHC/43/71,
UHC/50/71 and UHC/70/71. They have also sought in the alternative the setting
aside of the said judgment for violation of the terms of settlement… There
must be an end to litigation.” – Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, J.S.C.

DEFINITION AND RATIONALE OF RES JUDICATA – PREVENTING MULTIPLE BITES AT THE SAME CHERRY:

“The
expression ‘res judicata’ means ‘a thing adjudicated’; a thing judicially acted
upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. It came out of the
original expression ‘res adjudicate’. The principle enshrined in res judicata
is derived from the maxim nemo debet bis vexari si constet curiae quod sit pro
una et eadem causa which when literally translated means: no man ought to be
twice vexed, if it is proved to the Court that it is for one and the same
cause… The rationale is that although a party is entitled to swallow two
cherries in successive gulps, he is not allowed to take two bites at the same
cherry.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

MEANING OF “PARTIES” IN RES JUDICATA – EXPANSIVE DEFINITION BEYOND NAMED PARTIES:

“The
term ‘parties’ for purpose of estoppel per rem judicatam includes not only
those named on the record but also those represented and those who had direct
interest in the subject matter of the dispute and had an opportunity to attend
and protect their interest in the proceedings… It includes privies, persons
whose titles derive from, and who claim through, a party. Judgment given in a
previous action binds all the privies of the named parties in the action and
will create estoppel per rem judicatam against them.” – Per HABEEB ADEWALE
OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Evidence Act, 2011, Section 173

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT