CHIEF SAM WARRI ESI VS THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA & ORS

CORAM

UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

BABALAKIN,JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

CHIEF SAM WARRI ESI. (For himself and on behalf of Igbudu people.) THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIAITSEKIRI COMMUNAL LAND TRUSTEESARISTOTLE MUSA EREKUOKORO OGEDEGBE (For substituted for Chief Ogedegbe Ogisi for themselves and as representing the Ogisi family of Odion Warri APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The then Government of Western Nigeria notified its intention to compulsorily acquire for public purposes a piece of land There then arose a dispute as to those entitled to receive compensation. The principal contestants for compensation before the court were the Olu of Warri, whom the learned trial Judge described in his judgment as the Head Chief of the Itsekiris and as the first claimant; and Chief Sam Warri Esi described as the second claimant and the representative of the Agbassa people. There was a third claimant described as the representative of a quarter of Agbassa.

HELD

The Supreme Court held that the apportionment granted by the trial Judge was in accordance with native law and custom.

ISSUES

Whether the said decision in regard to the issue of the apportionment of the compensation created an estoppel per rem judicatam

Did the learned trial Judge treat the apportionment as having created estoppel per rem judicatam between the parties?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES THE HEAD OF THE STATE TO DO CONCERNING COMPENSATION ON A PIECE OF LAND

“All that the law requires the Head of the State to do is to approve of the distribution or the application of such compensation among those thereto entitled where such compensation is payable to a community with a recognized Head Chief. There is no power in the Governor or the Head of State to undertake the actual apportionment or distribution of the compensation. The duty imposed upon the Head of State is that of approval.” Per UDOMA, JSC.

ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM

“It is elementary that to constitute estoppel per rem judicatam certain essential conditions must be satisfied. In this connection Lord Selborne in his judgment in R. v. Hutchings (1818) 6 QBD 300 at p. 304 quoting from the judgment of De Grey, CJ., in the Duchess of Kingstons case (1776) 3 EAST PC 468, said:-
There must be a lis inter partes in which the point relied on for establishing the estoppel was not merely incidentally, or collaterally, discussed and litigated, but was fundamental to the conclusion reached by the court. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction that has seising of the case for the purpose of reaching a final decision inter partes, though it may be a private tribunal such as an arbitrator whose forum is a domestic one constituted by the parties themselves.” Per UDOMA, JSC