Legalpedia Citation: (2023-08) Legalpedia 70365 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

Holden at Lagos

Wed Aug 2, 2023

Suit Number: CA/LAG/CV/566/2022

CORAM

JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

FREDRICK EZIAKPONO OHO JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL

PARTIES

HON. MINISTER OF INTERIOR   —- APPELLANT

 

APPELLANTS

1. ETI-OSA LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LAGOS STATE
2. EGOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, EDO STATE
3. OWERRI MUNICIPAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IMO STATE     RESPONDENTS
4. PORT-HARCOURT CITY LOCAL GOVERNMENT, RIVERS STATE
5. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION
6. ANCHOR DATAWARE SOLUTION LIMITED

 

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

APPEAL, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, EVIDENCE, FAMILY LAW, JUDGMENT, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Before the lower court (Federal High Court, Lagos), the 1^stto 4^thRespondents prayed the court to restrain the Appellant and the 5^th and 6^th Respondents and their agents or privies from further contracting marriages, celebrating marriages, granting or issuing certificates of marriage, and registering marriages contracted or celebrated under the Marriage Act, Cap. M6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004 (among other prayers). The above-mentioned prayers were granted.

The Appellant was aggrieved by the decision hence the instant appeal. The 1^st to 4^th Respondents were also dissatisfied with parts of the decision not granting 2 of the seven reliefs and only granting in part one other relief and consequently cross-appealed.

HELD

Appeal allowed in part

Cross Appeal dismissed

ISSUES

Ø Whether the lower court was right when it held that the plea of doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable to the 1st to 4th Respondents’ action?

Ø Whether the learned trial Judge was right when it granted the reliefs sought by the 1st to 4th Respondents and found that the Judgment in Suit No: FHC/870/2002 granted exclusive rights to the 1st – 4th Respondents and other Local Governments in Nigeria to conduct, celebrate and register marriages within their local government?

Ø Whether the Cross Appellants are entitled to all the reliefs sought in its Amended Originating Summons?

 

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RES JUDICATA – THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA AND ITS EFFECT

As a starting point, it is apposite to state that the doctrine of res judicata is founded on a public policy that there must be an end to litigation. An action cannot be allowed to go on ad infinitum. Thus, the learned authors of Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition said at para. 1527 p.1027:

“To decide what questions of law and fact were determined in the earlier judgment the Court is entitled to look at the Judge’s reasons for his decision and his notes of the evidence and is not restricted to the record, but, as a general rule, the Judge’s reasons cannot be looked at for the purpose of excluding from the scope of his formal order any matter which, according to the issue raised on the pleadings and the terms of the order itself, is included in it. Even though the judgment was pleadable by way of estoppel it is perhaps not strictly correct to regard its determination of legal rights as a question of estoppel. The parties are estopped by the findings of fact involved in the judgment; as respects the determination of questions of law, the true view seems to be that the parties’ legal rights are such as they have been determined to be by the judgment of a competent court. The conclusiveness of the determination, however, rests upon the same principles in each case.”

See the case of Bruce-Akumngio vs. Harry & Ors (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) p.88

A plea of res judicata presumes that a matter or issue between the same parties or their privies has been determined on its merit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The plea therefore constitutes a bar to any fresh action between the same parties on the same issue. – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

BURDEN OF PROOF – BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF OF RES JUDICATA

The burden of proof of res judicata rests on the party relying on it to establish it based upon the rule of law that he who asserts must prove what he asserts.

Therefore, to succeed in a plea of res judicata, the party relying on it must prove that a) the parties; (b) the issue; and (c)the subject-matter in the previous action are the same as in the action in which the plea is raised. To sustain the plea of res judicata all the conditions must co-exist and a break in the link chain will render the plea unsustainable. See the cases of Aro vs. Aro (2000) 3 NWLR (Pt. 649) 443 and Lawal vs. Salami (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 687.

In the determination of whether the Appellant has effectively dislodged the burden of proving res judicata, the court is required to holistically consider all the materials on the record. – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

 

RES JUDICATA – TO ESTABLISH RES JUDICATA

I am of the considered view that in order to ascertain whether the subject matter and reliefs sought by the parties in the two actions are identical, recourse must be made to the entirety of the originating processes filed in both actions. – Per A. S. Umar, JCA

ENFORCEMENT – ENFORCEMENT OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

By virtue of the declaratory orders made in Suit No FHC/L/870/2002, the 1st to 4th Respondents are entitled by law to seek the enforcement of the said orders by instituting fresh proceedings as in the instant case. See the case of Iragbaji vs. Oyewinle (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1372) p.566 where the Supreme Court held as follows:

“A declaratory judgment or order is one that proclaims or declares the existence of a legal relationship but does not contain any order which may be enforced against the defendant. Once rights declared in a declaratory judgment are infringed, fresh proceedings are needed for enforcement.”

See also the case of Okoya vs. Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 172.

I am of the considered view that the 1st to 4th Respondents commenced Suit No FHC/L/CS/816/2018 in order to enforce the declaratory reliefs made by the court in FHC/L/870/2002. In the enforcement of the said Judgment, the fresh proceedings in Suit No FHC/L/CS/816/2018 cannot be tainted by the doctrine of res judicata.

Per A. S. Umar, JCA

ENFORCEMENT – ENFORCEMENT OF DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

…the 1st to 4th Respondents have the vires to enforce the declarations and orders made by the court in Suit No: FHC/L/CS/870/2002 by commencing a fresh action. This finding is consistent with the position upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Okoya vs. Santilli (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 172 where the court held that:

“It is also a matter of general consensus among academic writers and in judicial decisions that a declaratory judgment which is an embodiment of the recognition of particular right may be the basis for subsequent proceedings to enforce such rights, where such right is threatened or is being violated. It seems to me correct to postulate that a Declaratory judgment or order is a recognition of a dormant right. Hence a declaratory order or judgment remains a dormant right until subsequent proceedings have been taken to protect the threat to or violation of the rights so declared in the judgment or order.”

Per A. S. Umar, JCA

JUDGMENT – WHEN A JUDGMENT IS NOT APPEALED

…the Judgment in Suit No FHC/L/CS/870/2002 is neither challenged by either of the parties nor the subject of any appeal. In the absence of an appeal against the judgment, its competence cannot be challenged through the back door as the decision remains inviolate, correct, conclusive and binding on the parties. See Jibrin vs. State (2022) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1820) 269, Kurma vs. Sauwa (2019) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1659) 247, C.B.N. vs. Interstella Comm. Ltd. (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1618) 294, Ekwuruekwu vs. State (2020) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1713) 114.

Per A. S. Umar, JCA

MARRIAGE DISTRICTS – FUNCTION OF MARRIAGE DISTRICTS FOLLOWING THE ABOLITION OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS

…Marriage (Appointment of Principal Registrar, Registrars etc.) Notice (L.N 72 of 1971). The first Schedule of this legislation categorizes the various marriage districts within the administrative regions which were in operation at the time. It follows logically that following the abolition of the geographical regions and the creation of states from the old regions, the functions of the marriage districts will be designated to the states/local governments for administrative purposes.

I am therefore in complete agreement with the 1st to 4th Respondents that the local government council constitutes one of the forums for the celebration and contraction of marriage. As a corollary to this finding, it must be stated that the Appellant and the 1st to 4th Respondents are entitled to contract and celebrate marriages at the local government council in due compliance with the provisions of the Marriage Act.

Consequently, neither of the parties can arrogate to itself exclusive rights to the celebration and contraction of marriages.

Per A. S. Umar, JCA

MARRIAGES – VARIOUS FORA FOR THE CONDUCT AND CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGES

The court in Suit No: FHC/L/870/2002 highlighted the various fora for the conduct and celebration of marriages. The court identified the lawful bodies or authorities vested with the powers to celebrate and contract marriages for intending persons and recognized the marriage districts/local government council, and marriages conducted under the license granted by the Director-General Ministry of Internal affairs, Director-General of a State Government in charge of marriages and the Minister of Internal Affairs.

The simple implication of the decision in Suit No: FHC/L/870/2002 is that not one organ of government has the exclusive preserve of contracting and celebrating marriages between a prospective couple.

Per A. S. Umar, JCA

RELIEFS – WHERE A PRINCIPAL RELIEF FAILS

It is the law that where a principal relief fails, all reliefs ancillary or dependent thereto will fail. See Olayemi vs. FHA (2023) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1872) 445, Yusuf vs. Co.op. Bank Ltd (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt. 359) p. 676, Sunko (Nig.) Ltd vs. Skye Bank Plc. (2017) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1579) p. 237.

In the case of Awoniyi v Reg. Trustees of A more (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 522, the court held thus: “Where a court refuses the principal order sought, an incidental order cannot be made. This is because the principal order on which the consequential order should stand having been refused there is no basis for the making of the consequential order. In this case, the Supreme Court having dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal, there was nothing left for it to enforce.”

Per A. S. Umar, JCA

CASES CITED

NOT AVAILABLE

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
2. Marriage Act, Cap. M6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004
3. Marriage (Appointment of Principal Registrar, Registrars etc.) Notice (L.N 72 of 1971)

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT