AHMADU MAKUN & ORS VS FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

CORAM

ENEH, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

FABIYI, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

ADEKEYE, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

GALADIMA, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

VIVOUR, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

AHMADU MAKUN

YANGA BUBA

ZEZE MAAJI

ADMU KPEYI

MUHAMMADU ABDU

MAIANGUWA LEGBE

MUSA DANIEL (For themselves and on behalf of the entire Kwano, Lunko, Ekpigi, Kwaida Legbe and Bakin Pumpo villages entitled to compensation payments )

APPELLANTS 

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, MINNA

MIKA ANACHE (SECRETARY, LAND USE AND ALLOCATION COMMITTEE)

ENGR. MUSA JEMAKU (DIRECTOR-GENERAL LANDS, SURVEY & TOWN PLANNING DEPT

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION-RES JUDICATA-JURISDICTION-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Appellants before this court as plaintiffs instituted an action in a representative capacity that they are entitled to compensation for the acquisition of their entire land for public purpose, against the respondents. Upon a preliminary objection brought by the 1st respondent, the court declined jurisdiction. An appeal to the court of appeal was dismissed, hence this present further appeal.

HELD

Dismissing the appeal

ISSUES

(1) Whether the issue of the competence of the High Court and of the land use and allocation Committee to determine the present claims of the plaintiffs have been adjudicated upon in the two earlier suits and

(2) Whether the lower court was right when it held that the trial court’s decision that it had jurisdiction to determine the 1st leg of plaintiff s claim was made per -incuriam.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATA DEFINED

Estoppel per rem judicatam or estopel of record arises where an issue of fact has been judicially determined in a final manner between the parties or their privies by a court or tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter and the same issue comes directly in question in subsequent proceedings between the parties or their privies. It effectively precludes a party to an action, his agents and privies from disputing as against the other party in any subsequent suit, matters which had been adjudicated upon previously by a court of competent jurisdiction between him and his adversary involving the same issues. Per Adekeye JSC

CATEGORIES OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM

There are two categories of estoppel per rem judicatam. They are –

(1) Cause of Action Estoppel – This precludes a party to an action from asserting or denying as against the other party, the existence of a particular cause of action-the non-existence or existence of which has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in a previous litigation between the same parties. This is because it is against the rule of public policy for anyone to be vexed twice on the same ground and for one and the same cause of action and or the same issues. It is also an application of the rule of public policy that there should be an end to litigation. In appropriate case, the parties affected are estopped from bringing a fresh action before any court on the same cause and on the same issues already decided or pronounced upon by a court of competent jurisdiction in a previous action.

(2) Issue Estoppel – The rule being that once one or more issues have been raised in a cause of action and distinctly determined or resolved between the same parties in a court of competent jurisdiction, then as a general rule, neither party nor his agent or privy is allowed to relitigate that or those decided issues all over again in another action between the same parties or their privies on the same issues.

CONDITIONS FOR THE PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM

For a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam to succeed, the party relying on it must establish the following requirements or pre- conditions namely –

(a)That the parties or their privies are the same in both the previous and the present proceedings

(b)That the claim or issues in dispute in both actions are the same.

(c)That the res or the subject matter of the litigation in the two cases is the same.

(d)That the decision relied upon to support the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam is valid, subsisting and final.

(e)That the court that gave the previous decision relied upon to sustain the plea is a court of competent jurisdiction.

Unless all the above constituent elements or requirements of the doctrine are fully established the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam cannot be sustained. Per Adekeye JSC

RES JUDICATA

In determining whether the issues, the subject matter of the two actions and the parties are the same, the court is permitted to study the pleadings, the proceedings and the judgment in the previous action. The court may also examine other relevant facts to discover what was in issue in the previous case. Per Adekeye JSC

PLEA OF RES JUDICATA – WHEN IT OPERATES

The plea of res judicata applies except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment but to every point which properly belonged to the subject-matter of litigation and which the parties exercising reasonable diligence might have brought forward. Per Adekeye JSC

PLEA OF RES JUDICATA – WHEN IT OPERATES

The plea of res judicata operates not only against the parties but also against the jurisdiction of the court itself and robs the court of its jurisdiction to entertain the same cause of action on the same issues previously determined by a court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties. Per Adekeye JSC

PLEA OF RES JUDICATA – WHEN IT OPERATES

It is a foregone conclusion in law that based on the doctrine of res judicata, where court of competent jurisdiction has settled, by a final decision the matters in dispute between the parties none of the parties or his privies may re-litigate that issue again by bringing a fresh action. The estoppel created is said to be by record inter parties. Per Adekeye JSC

THE RULE OF RES JUDICATA

The rule of estoppel per rem judicatam requires that where a final decision is given by a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties thereto cannot be heard to contradict that decision in any subsequent litigation between them respecting the same subject-matter. As a plea, the decision operates as a bar to a subsequent litigation and as evidence; it is conclusive between the parties to it. The plea applies where a court has given a final decision on the matter like deciding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a matter and there is no appeal against it. Per Adekeye JSC

CASES CITED

Adone v. Ikebudu (2001) 14NWLR Pt. 733 Pg. 385

Ukaegbu v. Ugoji (1991) 6 NWLR Pt. 196 Pg 127,

Ezeudu v. Obiagwu (1986) 2 NWLR Pt.21 Pg. 208,

Osunrinde v. Ajamogun_(1992) 6 NWLR Pt. 246 Pg 156,

Iga v. Amakiri (1976) 11 SC 1,

Udeze v. Chidebe (1990) 1 NWLR 3 (Pt. 125) 141,

Lawal v. Dawodu (1972) 1 ALL NLR Pt. 2 Pg. 270,

Ezewani v. Onwordi (1986) 4 NWLR Pt. 33 Pg. 27,

Fadiora v. Gbadebo (1978) 3 SC 219.

Achemba v. Odiese (1990) 1 NWLR Pt. 125 Pg. 165,

Omokhafe v. Ezekhome (1993) 8 NWLR Pt. 309 Pg. 58,

Balogun v. Adejobi (1995) 2 NWLR Pt. 375 Pg. 131,

Lawal v. Dawodu (1972) 1 ALL NLR Pt. 2 Pg.270,

Ezewani v. Onwurdi (1986) 4 NWLR Pt. 33 Pg. 27,

Adone v. Ikebudu (2001) 14 NWLR Pt. 733 Pg. 385.

Adigun v. Governor of Osun State (1995)30 NWLR Pt. 385 Pg. 513,

Oke v. Atoloye (1985) ALL NLR (pt.9) pg.578,

Yoye v Olalode (1974) ALL NLR (pt.2) pg.118,

Alase v. Olori-Ilu (1965) NMLR Pg.66,

Fadiora v. Gbadebo (1978) 3 SC 219,

Odjewedje v. Echanokpe (1987) 1 NWLR Pt. 52 Pg. 633.

Nwaneri v. Oruiwa (1959) SC NLR Pg. 316

Nkanu v. Onum (1977)5 SCI.

Udo v. Obot (1989) 2 NWLR Pt. 95 Pg.59

Standard Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. Ikomi (1972) 1 SC Pg. 164.

Ijale v. A. G. Leventis & Co. Ltd (1961) 2 SCNLR Pg. 386.

Abubakar v. B.O. &A. P. Ltd (2007) 18 NWLR Pt. 1066 Pg. 319 at Pg.369,

Agbogunlari v. Depo (2008) 3 NWLR Pt. 1074 Pg. 217,

Balogun v. Ode (2007) 4 NWLR Pt. 1023 Pg. 1.

Ajiofor v. Onyekwe & ors (1972) 1 ALL NLR (pt.2) pg 527

Adisa v. Oyinwola (200) 6 SC Pt.ll page 47 at page 48

Buhari v. INEC (2008) 19 NWLR Pt. 1120 Pg 246 at page 372

Rossek v. ACB Ltd (1993) 8 NWLR Pt.312 Pg.382,

African Newspaper v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (1985) 2 NWLR Pt. 6 Pg. 137

NHRI v. Ayoade (1997) 11 NWLR Pt. 530 Pg. 541

Kukoyi v Aina (1999) 10 NWLR Pt. 624 Pg. 633

STATUTES REFERRED TO

Not Available

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT