CORAM

---

MUHAMMED LAWAL UWAIS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

UMARU. ATU. KALGO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.

PHILIP NNAEMEKA-AGU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

CHIEF URIAH AKPANA ADOMBA CHIEF WILLAIM AKUMA EFAMO ASIERA ALOKO FRANK OGELE (For themselves and on behalf of the Ekoni family of Opomatabo) APPELLANTS

---

RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

 The plaintiff by virtue of an earlier decision of the supreme court in respect of the subject matter  which award compensation to them against the same Appellants over the subject -matter. To prove title to the subject matter, the plaintiff seek to rely on equitable defences of estoppel and res judicata and by attempting to graft an existing plan to the previous judgment of the court, this was challenged by the Appellant .

---

HELD

---

The court held that the court of appeal was in error when it treated the case as that of cause of action estoppel and proceeded on that footing to arrive at its decision and that the trial court made findings to the effect that the appellants failed to prove their counter-claim before it was dismissed.

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the decision of this court (Exhibit D6) in Chief Uriah Akpana Adomba & Ors. v. Benjamin Odiese & Ors. SC. 151/1987 (reported in (1990) 1 NWLR (Part 125) 165 (“the compensation case”) raises an estoppel against the plaintiffs from re-litigating the issue of title to the land.”(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct in dealing with the case on the footing that the title to the dispute land was in issue at the trial?(b) If so, is the Court of Appeal also correct in holding that the onus of proof rested with the plaintiffs?(c) And if so, did the plaintiffs adduce at the trial, enough legal evidence (duly accepted) in proof of their case so as not to warrant interference by the appellate court with the primary function of the trial court in fact finding?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DOCTRINE OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL

---

When the question is whether the doctrine of issue estoppel is applicable to a case or not, the important questions to ask, put tersely, are whether the parties are the same; whether the issues are the same; whether the issues are material to the cause of action in the previous and in the later case; and, whether that issue has been resolved in the previous case. PER AYOOLA JSC

---

DEFENCE OF ISSUE ESTOPPEL.

---

The principle that for a defence of issue estoppel to succeed there must be identity of parties does not mean that all the parties in the previous suit must be made parties in the latter suit only the necessary party to the suit that are indispensable. PER AYOOLA JSC

---

CASES CITED

---

Mills v. Cooper [1967] 2 All ER 100 at 104

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

NONE

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT