CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

1.S.O. NTUKS2. C. I. NWORIGU3. E. OKOCHA4. A. ADUBE5. A. ASHERI6. C. AKUKAM7. J. ONI8. IKUJORE9. C. C. OFOHA10. S. ABA(for and on behalf of NPA Retrenched Staff June 1991. APPELLANT(S) / PLAINTIFF(S)

---

DEFENDANT(S) /RESPONDENT(S)

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants had sued the respondent in a representative action for not giving them their full entitlement when they where retrenched, the court gave judgment in their favour. The Respondent filed another suit to set aside the previous judgement because it was obtained by fraud.

---

HELD

---

The Supreme Court held that the suit of the Respondents is an abuse of court process.

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the Court below was right in holding that the issues in Suit No. LD/1827/92 and LD/1021/99 were not the same.

2. Whether the allegation of fraud in relation to admitted document now raised by the Respondent in Suit No. LD/1021/92 is not an after thought in the light of the decision of the Court below in Suit No. CA/L/425/97 to defeat a successful plea of Res Judicata and entitle the Respondent to file this new suit.

3. Whether the Court below having adopted the issues formulated by the appellants ought to have pronounced on the effect of its earlier decision in Suit No. CA/L/425/97 vis-à-vis this appeal in Suit No. CA/L/99/2002 relating to same judgment.

4. Whether the court below was right to have provided a new platform for the Respondent to challenge the decision of the trial court in Suit No.LD/1827/92 in Suit No. LD/1021/99 on an issue which was not challenged in its earlier appeal dismissed in suit No. CA/L/425/97

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

WHAT IS RES JUDICATA AND INGREDIENTS NECESSARY TO PROVE SAME

---

“Where a court of competent jurisdiction, has settled by a final decision, the matters in dispute between the parties, none of the parties or his privy, may re-litigate that issue again by bringing a fresh action. The matter is said to be res judicata. The estoppel created, is one by record inter parties. Thus, a successful plea of res judicata, ousts the jurisdiction of the court in the proceedings in which it is raised… In order to satisfy such a plea of res judicata, the parties or their privies as the case may be, are the same in the present case as the previous case; the issues and subject-matter, are the same in the previous case as in the present case; the adjudication in the previous case, must have been given by a “court of competent jurisdiction and the previous decision, must have finally, decided the issues between the parties.” Per Ogbuagu, JSC

---

POSITION OF DOCUMENT WRONGLY ADMITTED

---

“If a document, is however, wrongly admitted/received in evidence before a trial court, an Appellate Court, has the inherent jurisdiction, to exclude it although counsel at the lower court, did not object to its going in.” Per Ogbuagu, JSC

---

CASES CITED

---

1. Ukaegbu & 7 ors. v. Ugorji & 3 ors. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.196) 127; (1991) 7 SCNJ. (Pt.II) 244 at 254, 256
2. Fadiora v. Gbadebo (1978) 3 S.C. 219; (1978) 1 LRN. 106
3. Akunna v. Ekwuno & ors. (1952) 14 WACA 59 at 60
4. Alashe v. Ilu (1961) 1 ANLR 390

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

NONE

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT