JONATHAN UBA & ANOR VS BORE AUTA

“In the consideration of an Appeal from the decision of an appellate Court such as the lower Court, the duty of this Court is to review the findings of the said Court and decide whether it came to a right decision. Thus, my obligation here is not to re-evaluate the evidence of the parties adduced at the trial Court and to make my own findings thereon. Rather, it is to decide whether the lower Court was right in its decision. Traditionally and as a matter of law, an appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of facts of a trial Court except where the findings do not correspond with the evidence before it. In such a circumstance, such findings are described as being perverse, as any decision based on perverse findings will not stand – Unity Bank Plc V Abba (2013) LPELR–22890(CA);Dasuki (Rtd) V FRN ELC (2018) 3047(SC) 1; Egbufor V State (2013) LPELR-20688(CA); Unity Bank Plc V Abba (2013) LPELR-22890(CA); Nteogwuile V Otuo (2001) 16 NWLR (Pt. 738) 58;Adamu V State (2017) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1565) 459; Iroagbara V Ufomadu (2009) 5-6 SC (Pt. 1) 83; Ojo V Gov. Oyo State (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 956) 1; Abegunde V Ondo State House of Assembly (2015) 4-5 SC (Pt. 1) 1”.

“Res judicata, as a defence to a claim, is derived from the Latin term “Res judicata”. It means a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by Judgment – Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition. The rule is that a final Judgment rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action”.

“Estoppel per rem judicatam is a rule of evidence whereby a party (or his privy) is precluded from disputing in any subsequent proceedings, matters which had been adjudicated upon previously by a competent Court between him (or his privy) and his opponent – Section 59 of the Evidence Act, 2011. A party raising a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam is in fact urging the Court before which it is raised not to consider the issues in the case anew, the issues having been previously adjudicated upon by a competent Court – Okposin V Assam (2005) LPELR-2521(SC) 26, A-C, per Oguntade, JSC. Thus, the essential features of this doctrine are: An earlier decision on the subject matter and issue(s) from a Court of competent jurisdiction; A final Judgment on the merits; and The involvement of the same parties or parties in privy with the original parties. The issue of estoppel per rem judicatam/res judicata is based on the principle of the necessity to have an end to litigation in respect of the same res and between the same parties or their privies. See Ntuks V NPA (2007) LPELR-2076(SC) 25, C-F, per Tobi, JSC; Adeyemi-Bero V Lagos State Dev. Property Corp. (2012) LPELR-20615(SC) 77, C-D; Olukoga V Fatunde (1996) LPELR-2623(SC) 20, F.

“Where a Court of competent jurisdiction has finally settled a matter in dispute between parties, neither the parties nor their privies may re-litigate that issue as under the guise of bringing a fresh action since the matter is said to be res judicata. The Supreme Court in Ajiboye V Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR (Pt. 998) 628 was clear on the law that where an issue of fact has been judicially determined in a final manner between the parties or their privies, such issue cannot be re-litigated in a subsequent suit.

“In addition, the law is settled that the learned Judges of the High Court of a State have equal powers and are of coordinate jurisdiction – Section 270 of the Constitution. A Court of coordinate jurisdiction has no constitutional power to sit as an appellate Court in another case and review and/or adjudicate on a decision or order made by another Court of the same hierarchy. In Gani V AG Lagos State No. 1 (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 112) 707, 774, the apex Court held: “The presumption has always been that the decisions of a superior Court are within jurisdiction and are correct until the contrary is proved. It seems to me that even if the decision of the superior Court is a nullity, the only proper way of challenging such decision must be by an application before the very Court which tried the case or by an application to the appropriate appellate Court. Even if the Judgment Longe J. were a nullity, the proper way to set it aside is by an Appeal not by a review before a Court of coordinate jurisdiction… It seems to me that in view of the provision of the Constitution which carefully shares jurisdiction to the various Courts…, only the Court vested with the the particular jurisdiction can interfere with the decision of another Court.”

“The Supreme Court in Ajiboye V Ajibola (1995) LPELR-724(SC) 34, B-F, Belgore JSC held as follows: “Estoppel per rem judicatam operates when there has been a final decision by a Court of competent jurisdiction, whose decision has not been challenged legally either by way of appeal or, if appealed against, final decision has been made by competent Court or Courts, and that the decision is between their privies, and the issue or subject matter is the same. It is based on res inter allios acta alteri nocere non potest. This principle is as old as the Common Law in this country and it operates for or against not only the parties in the Court in the previous case but also their privies. Privies include all those who are related to the parties in blood, interest and title of the subject-matter.” Thus, once a dispute or matter has been finally and judicially pronounced upon or determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, neither the parties thereto nor their privies can subsequently be allowed to re-litigate the matter because a judicial determination, properly handed down, is conclusive until reversed by an appellate Court. The veracity of that decision is not open to challenge nor can it be contradicted. This doctrine is grounded in public policy which stipulates that there must be an end to litigation – Ayilara V Fed. Ministry of Works & Housing (2013) LPELR-20772(CA) 33-34, F-B, per Sankey, JCA.