ALHAJI BUBA USMAN VS. MOHAMMED TAMINU GARKE
June 13, 2025BASHIR MOHAMMED DALHATU VS IBRAHIM SAMINU TURAKI & ORS
June 13, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2003) Legalpedia (SC) 11431
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Jul 4, 2003
Suit Number: SC. 143/1999
CORAM
I. L. KUTIGI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M.E. OGUNDARE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. O. EJIWUNMI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U.A KALGO JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
M.L. UWAIS – CHIEF JUSTICE OF NIGERIA
PARTIES
SALAMI AFOLABI(For himself and on behalf of Kayode Ruling House)SULAIMANU OYETUNDE(For himself and on behalf of Olubaka Ruling House)GBADAMOSI OLANIYAN(For himself and on behalf of Oduoye Ruling House) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appellant seeks to exclude Mr. Alimi Mojoyinola, the 4th respondents from being one of the Ruling Houses in chieftaincy.
HELD
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that as this Court had earlier on decided that the 4th respondents are one of the Ruling Houses entitled to chieftaincy, the appellant is estopped from re-litigating the matter.
ISSUES
Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Appeal No. SC.251/1984 reported in (1985) 2 NWLR. (PT. 9) page 734 could constitute an estoppel in the present proceedings.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRNCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA
It is settled law that to sustain a plea of res judicata, the party pleading it must satisfy the following conditionalites, to wit –
(1) That the parties (or privies as the case may be) are the same in the present case as in the previous case;
(2) That the issue and subject matter are the same in the previous suit as in the present suit;
(3) That the adjudication in the previous case must have been given by a Court of competent jurisdiction; and
(4) That the previous decision must have finally decided the issues between the parties.
Failure to satisfy any of these conditions means failure of the plea in its entirety. Per I.L KULIGI JSC
OPERATION OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM
Estoppel, as a defence, is to ensure that a litigation which has been prosecuted to conclusion cannot be resuscitated at the instance of a plaintiff. The rationale behind this is to make sure that litigation comes to an end and not necessarily repeated to the annoyance of the defendant and the entire administration of justice or the judicial system. But for the principle of estoppel and the twin principle of res judicata, litigation could not have had an end. Per NIKI TOBI, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Nkanu & Ors V. Onum & Ors (1977) 5 SC. 11
2. Ikpang V. Edoho (1978) 6-7 SC. 221
3. Dzungwe V. Gbishe (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 528
4. Udo V. Obot (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt. 95) 59
5. Madukolu V. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 585; (2001) 3SCM, 185
6. Ekpoke V. Usilo (1978) 6 – 7 SC 187
7. Fadiora V. Gbadebo (1978) 3 SC 219); (2002) 3 SCM, 157
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1. Chiefs Law, Cap. 21 Laws of Oyo State 1978 1957
2. 1982 Chieftaincy Declaration for the selection of Olobagun of Obagun
3. 1986 Chieftaincy Declaration for the selection of Olobagun of Obagun
