TERHILE TION V. JOHN TERSEER MBAPUUN
March 23, 2025MOHAMMED ALI BARMA V. THE STATE
March 23, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-06) Legalpedia 58973 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT GOMBE
Mon May 30, 2022
Suit Number: CA/G/190/2017
CORAM
JUMMAI HANNATU SANKEY JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
IBRAHIM SHATA BDLIYA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
EBIOWEI TOBI JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
MOHAMMED LAMINU GONI
APPELLANTS
UMAR TAHIR
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, COURT, ESTOPPEL, LAW OF EVIDENCE, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, RES JUDICATA, WORDS AND PHRASES
SUMMARY OF FACTS
One late Abudulkadir Tele, who cleared the land, which was a forest, originally owned the land in dispute. He was in ownership of the said land until he sold it to Abdulkadir Ngare. Abdulkadir Ngare, who took physical possession of it, thereafter sold the land to Mallam Gonimi.
Sometime in 2006, Baba Umar Mustapha sued Mallam Gonimi before the lower court in suit No. BHOC/MG/CV/13 claiming for declaration of title to the said land. The lower court entered judgment in favour of Mallam Gonimi, who thereafter, sold the land to the Appellant, Mohammed Laminu Goni, who took possession of same. The Appellant (Mallam Mohammed Laminu Goni), later discovered his parcel of land was trespassed into by Umar Tahir, hence the institution of suit before the Borno State High Court, wherein he sought for declaration of title to land, order of perpetual injunction, an order for the demolition of the structure that might have been constructed by the Defendant and the cost of the suit.
The Respondent filed a notice of preliminary objection to the competence of the suit on grounds that the suit is res judicata.
After considering the affidavit, counter affidavit, the Reply affidavit and the applicable principles of law, the learned judge of the lower court held that the suit is incompetent by reason of res judicata. The Court consequently dismissed the Appellant’s claim.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Appellant appealed to this court. The main thrust of the appeal is that the principle, which will warrant a plea of estoppel per rem judicata to operate has not been established by the Respondent who was not a party to the earlier suit.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether, having regard to the Affidavit evidence, the pleadings and the judgments of the lower court in suits Nos. BOHC/MG/CV/137/2011, and M/142/2006, suit No BOHC/MG/CV/54/2014 is rendered incompetent by reason of the doctrine of res judicata?”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION- PURPOSE OF REFRAMING ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION
“An appellate court, can reformulate issues for determination in an appeal, provided such issues are predicated on the grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal filed by the appellant or the cross appellant as the case may be. The purpose of reframing issue or issues is to lead to a more judicious and proper determination of an appeal. In others words, the purpose is to narrow the issue or issues in controversy in the interest of accuracy, clarity and brevity. See Okoro Vs State (1988) 5 NWLR (PT 94) 255; Latunde Vs Lajinfi (1989) 3 NWLR (PT 108) 177; Awojugbagbe Light Industries Ltd. Vs Chinukwe (1995) 5 NWLR (PT 390) 379; Ogunbiyi Vs Ishola (1996) 6 NWLR (PT 452) 12. PER I. S. BDLIYA, J.C.A
RES-JUDICATA – PRINCIPLES OF RES-JUDICATA AND ITS APPLICATION
“What is the principles of res-judicata and its application in the legal parlance? In the case of Makaun & Ors Vs Federal University Of Technology, Minna & Ors (2011) 7 MJSC (PT 3) P. 140 @ 171, the Apex Court had this to say:
“Estoppel per rem judicatam or estoppels of record arises where all issue of fact has been judicially determined in a final manner between the parties or their privies by a court of Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter and the same issues comes directly in question in subsequent proceedings between the parties and their privies. It affectively precludes a party to an action, his agents or privies from disputing as against the other party in any subsequent suit, matters which had been adjudicated upon previously by a and his adversary involving same issues”
-PER I. S. BDLIYA, J.C.A
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available
