“In this wise, the authority of Etim vs. Etta (2014) All FWLR (Pt.712) 1808 at 1820-1821 at para. As also reported in (2012) LPELR-9691 (CA) at pages 18 to 20 paras. G-F per Tine Tur, J.C.A. (now of blessed memory) as well as the Supreme Court decision in the celebrated case of J.S.C., Cross-River State vs. Young (2014) All FWLR (Pt.714) 40 at 60 para. E; on the trite position of law that only parties to a Suit can be bound by the Judgment of the Court in such a Suit and that no person will be adversely affected by the Judgment in an action to which he was not a party because of the injustice of deciding an issue against him in his absence which dictum is predicated on the philosophical basis of the rule of law and to safeguard the fundamental principle of natural justice as encapsulated in the Latin Maxim of “Audi Alteram Partem” (hear the other side). I am not oblivious of the exceptions to the general rule as enunciated in the cases of Dike-Ogu vs. Amadi (supra) citing Ekpoke vs. Usilo (supra) as far as privies are concerned but I reiterate in total agreement with the learned Counsel to the Respondents that landlords and tenants as in this case are not included in the definitions contained in the various Texts and the decided authorities cited by the learned Counsel to the Appellant. For the avoidance of doubt, the term “tenant” is defined by Section 2 of the Recovery of Premises Act, Cap.44, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990 as any person occupying premises whether on payment of rent or otherwise but does not include a person occupying premises under a bona fide claim to be the owner of the premises.”

“There is also no doubt that in Chief Amadi Dike-Ogu & Ors. vs. Owhonda Frank Amadi & & Ors. (2008) LPELR-8659 (CA); this Court per Galadima, J.C.A. (as he then was at pp.29-30, paras. D-F) held thus: “Parties in the subsequent action may be privies to the previous action. Privies in law are those who derive title from and also claimed through that party. Privies are in three categories or classes: (a) Privies in blood; (b) Privies in law; and (c) Privies in estate. The first are blood relation like ancestors and heirs; the second and third are executors, administrators, vendors and purchasers. See Coker vs. Sanyaolu (1976) 9-10 AC.” –

“The emeritus Law Lord of the Apex Court as he now is, quoted with the approval the dictum of Obaseki, JSC in Ekpoke vs. Usilo (1978) 6-7 SC 187 at 200-201; who re-stated the legal effect of privy and its exception to the doctrine of natural justice principle, that every man must be heard on legal principle affecting him and that the learned Law Lord of blessed memory had also posited that the general rule is that no person is to be adversely affected by a Judgment in an action to which he was not a party because of the injustice in deciding an Issue against him in his absence. According to him: “But this general rule admits of two exceptions; one is that a person who is a privy with the parties, a “privy” as he is called is bound equally with the Parties, a “privy” as he is estopped by res judicata; the other is that a person may have so acted as to preclude himself from challenging the judgment in which case he estopped by his conduct. Nigerian Law recognizes that the conduct of a person may be such that he is estopped from re-litigating the issues all over again. This conduct sometimes consists of active participation in the proceedings. For instance, when a tenant is sued for trespass on his neighbour’s land and he defends it on the strength of the Landlord’s title and does so by the direction and authority of the landlord. On other occasions, the conduct may consist of taking actual benefit from Judgment in the previous proceedings. See In re: Lart Wilkinson vs. Blades (1896) 2 Ch. 788; Talabi vs. Adeseye (1972) 8-9 SC 20; and Okoromaka vs. Odiri (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt.408) 411 at 437.” –