CORAM

---

JUSTICE, ITA.G. MBABA (PJ), OFR,JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

JUSTICE, PATRICIA A. MAHMOUD,JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

JUSTICE, PETER O. AFFEN,JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL

---

PARTIES

---

KACHALLA MAKERI

APPELLANTS 

---

YACHIBAU DADWI

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

LAND LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE, RES JUDICATA, APPELLATE PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant filed suit at the Upper Area Court claiming trespass against the Respondent on land which had been previously litigated in 1992 between their parents in Suit No. CV/86/92 at the Lunguda Area Court. The Appellant claimed the earlier judgment had divided the land into two parts with a stream as boundary, and that Respondent had trespassed on his portion. The Upper Area Court ruled in Appellant’s favor. On appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment, finding the matter was res judicata as the earlier judgment had awarded the entire land to Respondent’s mother with no division of the land.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The appeal was dismissed.

2. The Lower Court correctly found the matter was res judicata as the earlier 1992 judgment had determined title in favor of Respondent’s mother.

3. The Appellant could not relitigate ownership of land already adjudicated.

4. Costs of N200,000 awarded to Respondent.

 

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Lower Court properly appreciated the facts in setting aside the trial court’s judgment ?

2. Whether the Lower Court’s judgment was perverse ?

3. Whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction to deliver its judgment (abandoned by Appellant) ?

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION

---

“The principles of estoppels or plea of res-judicata is meant to stop a party from relitigating over a matter or issue that has enjoyed conclusive or effective adjudication and determination by a competent Court of law.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – MULTIPLICITY OF ACTIONS

---

“The categories of abuse are not closed and there is an infinite miscellany of circumstances that could give rise to abuse of process… It will arise in instituting a multiplicity of actions on the same subject matter against the same opponent on the same issues.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – PRIMARY CONSIDERATION

---

“The law is trite that documentary evidence serves as a hanger upon which oral evidence can be tested.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

EARLIER JUDGMENT – EFFECT OF NON-APPEAL

---

 “With that, one wonders about the basis of the new Suit at the Upper Area Court, over the same land, alleging trespass by the party said to have been favoured by the earlier judgment of the Longuda Area Court!” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

RE-LITIGATION OF TITLE – PROHIBITION

---

“The land having been adjudged for Plaintiff in CV/86/1992 (now Respondent in this Appeal), how can the same Plaintiff become trespassers in the same land!” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

ORAL EVIDENCE – RELATIONSHIP WITH DOCUMENTARY PROOF

---

“The lower Upper Area Court blindfolded itself by wasting her energy and by calling evidence (oral) instead of having recourse to the documentary evidence tendered and admitted by the parties.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

ADMISSIONS AGAINST INTEREST – EFFECT

---

“With this piece of evidence coming from… the owner of the case before the Lower Court, the learned Judge… ought to have dismissed the Plaintiff’s case.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

BOUNDARY DISPUTE – PROOF

---

“In the absence of clear evidence that the Lunguda Area Court shared the land between Chinko and Jibonye (Jibunye), with specified boundary (boundaries)… there is no way the said case at the Upper Area Court, can be competent.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

EFFECT OF PREVIOUS JUDGMENT – BINDING NATURE

---

“The fact that the Respondent (as Plaintiff) won at the Longuda Area Court, and Appellant (as Defendant) lost and was ordered to leave the part sought by Plaintiff… all that defeated every legal foundation to relitigate the Suit.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

FINALITY OF JUDGMENT – APPLICATION

---

“The aim of the principle is to put to an end, a matter that was previously litigated by a competent Court of law. It is to avoid duplicity or multiplicity of litigation.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF COURT RECORDS

---

“Both Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ are so explicit (Res ipsa loquitor).” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – TRESPASS CLAIM

---

“In the absence of clear evidence… that the Respondent (Defendant) crossed over to or trespassed on the part designated for Appellant (Plaintiff)… there is no way the said case at the Upper Area Court, can be competent.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

APPELLATE INTERVENTION – PERVERSE FINDINGS

---

“I agree with the above reasoning and findings by the Lower Court… I see no merit in this Appeal.” – Per Ita G. Mbaba, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

1. Evidence Act 2011

2. Court of Appeal Rules

3.  Area Courts Law of Adamawa State

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT

---