CORAM

---

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE (PRESIDED),JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE (PRESIDED),JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE (PRESIDED),JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE (PRESIDED),JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE (PRESIDED),JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

SALIHU MODIBBO ALFA BELGORE (PRESIDED),JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

MISS IDONIBOYE BETEBO INYE

---

THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF FOURSQUARE GOSPEL CHURCH

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant had instituted an action against the Respondent over a parcel of land called Opuene Briggs, Kiri lying and situate at Briggs compound Abonnema, in Akuku-Toru Local Government Area of Rivers State before the Rivers State High Court, wherein she sought for a declaration that the Appellant is by purchase, the owner of the parcel of land in dispute by virtue of a Deed of Conveyance dated the 5th day of November, 2011 made in favour of the Appellant; a perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent; and the sum of (N20,000,000.00) Twenty Million Naira representing general damage for the Trespass. The facts are that the Appellant bought the piece of land subject-matter of this appeal from Opuene Dafiri Briggs, who had litigated on the same piece of land with the Respondent and one other and lost as he could not establish or prove the root of title of his Vendor, Mr. Humphrey Jack. Afterwards, Opuene Dafiri Briggs went ahead and sold same to the Appellant. At the end of the trial, the Lower Court dismissed the Appellants action with costs of N250, 000.00 in favour of the Respondent which costs would be paid by the Mr. O. I. Briggs (Appellant’s predecessor in title). Aggrieved by the judgment of the Lower Court, the Appellant has appealed against same vide her Notice of Appeal.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the learned trial Judge of the Court below was right to have relied only on pages 2, 4 and 5 of Exhibit “ID” to dismiss the Appellant’s suit, when it is very clear that the name of the Respondent in Exhibit “ID” was expressly struck out of the suit in page 9, 3rd paragraph of the said Exhibit “ID” or page 8 of records? Whether the learned trial Judge of the Court below was right to have held that “Estoppel per rem judicatamhas been established based on the pleadings and evidence before this Court”when it was clear that the parties are different in law? Whether the learned trial Judge of the Court below was right to have applied the case of Abubakar vs. Usman (2017) 15 cost of N250,000.00against Appellant’s Counsel in this case, when the facts, issues and circumstances are not the same?

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ERROR OR MISTAKE IN JUDGMENT –CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN AN ERROR IN THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT WOULD LEAD TO THE SETTING ASIDE OF SAME

---

“My Lords, it is settled law that it is not every error/mistake in a judgment that will lead to the setting aside of a judgment on appeal. See F.B.N Plc vs. Ozokwere (2014) 3 NWLR (pt. 1395) p. 439.For a mistake of a trial Judge to have the effect of vitiating of his judgment such must be substantial and must lead to miscarriage of justice. See Onajobi vs. Olanipekun (1985) 4 SC (pt. 2) 156; Azabada vs. State (2014) 12 NWLR (pt. 1420) p. 40. –

---

JUDGMENT OF COURT – WHETHER A PRIVY TO A PARTY IN A SUIT IS BOUND BY A JUDGMENT OF COURT

---

“The party whose name was struck out in Exhibit “ID” was the REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF FOURSQUARE GOSPEL CHURCH who was the 2nd Defendant in the case. The other Defendant, who was the 1st Defendant was PASTOR FRANCIS AJIKE. PASTOR FRANCIS AJIKE was a servant of the 2nd Defendant whose name was eventually struck out in the case, at the material time. PASTOR AJIKE was sued in “Exhibit ID” because he was on the land through the church. He never claimed title to the land. He got on the land through the 2nd Defendant i.e. the church.
It seems clear to me therefore that PASTOR AJIKE was a privy to the 2ndDefendant in view of the above. See Arabio vs. Kanga (1932) 1 WACA 253 at 254; Agbogun Leri vs. Depo & Ors (2008) 3 NWLR (pt. 1074), p. 217. Hence 2nd Defendant was still bound by the said judgment. –

---

JUDGMENT IN REM – NATURE OF A JUDGMENT IN REM

---

“In any case the judgment in Exhibit “ID” is a judgment in rem as it determines the status of the parties and others with respect to the land in question. See Cole vs. Jibunoh & Ors (2016) 4 NWLR (pt. 1503) p. 499. It binds all persons including the Respondent whose name was struck out. See Ogboru vs. Uduaghan (2011) 17 NWLR (pt. 1277) 727 at 764-765. –

---

JUDGMENT OF COURT – STATUS OF A JUDGMENT OF COURT NOT SET ASIDE

---

“There is no appeal against the decision in Exhibit ID. It has not been set aside. It therefore stands. See Okuoja vs. Ishola (1982) 7 S.C. 314; Durbar Hotel Plc vs. Ityough (2017) 7 NWLR (pt. 1564) p. 256.-

---

PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM – CONDITIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM

---

“The conditions for successful plea of estoppel per rem judicatam were explained by the Apex Court in MAKUN & ORS vs. FOTMINNA & ORS (2011) 18 NWLR (pt. 1278) 190 where it was held that: (a) the parties or their privies must be the same in both the previous and the present proceeding. (b) the claim or issues in dispute in both actions must be the same. (c) the subject matter of the litigation in the two cases must be the same, and (d) the decision relied upon in support of the plea must be valid”. –

---

LEGAL REPRESENTATION – DUTY OF A LEGAL PRACTITIONER TO HIS CLIENT

---

“A Counsel holds himself out to his client as being professionally competent to handle the legal needs of the said client. He has a duty to handle the instructions of his client with competence. If through his sheer incompetence and utter irresponsibility he causes his client to incur losses he should be damnified in costs or even damages.
In Abubakar & Anor vs. Usman (supra), Chima Centus Nweze, J.S.C. held thus, when a similar situation arose before the Apex Court:
“………… I shall not only enter an order striking out this appeal; I am under a duty to damnify Learned Senior Counsel for this ill-advised and ill-fated forensic trip to this rare judicial attitude where only serious questions of law ought to be canvassed.
Accordingly, I hereby award costs, assessed and fixed at N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) only in favour of the first and second Respondents (objectors to be personally paid by Senior Counsel for the Appellant).”
–

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT