BOSINDE AYUYA V CHIEF NAGHAN YONRIN

CORAM

SALIHU MODDIBO ALFA BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

BOSINDE AYUYA AKIMIS AKEMEYAI ZUOKUMOR YOUNBAI OGBE HUMPHREY TEBE-OWEI PUlLAH EGENA BRISIBE (For themselves and on behalf of OJOBO Community) APELLANT(S) / CROSS RESPONDENT(S)

CHIEF NAGHAN YONRIN

RESPONDENTS / CROSS APPELLANTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants instituted a suit against the respondents, for declaration of title to land, damages for trespass and injunction. The learned trial judge found for the plaintiffs/appellants and granted all the reliefs claimed. The learned trial Judge also added a relief not claimed by either party into the bargain resulting in an appeal and a cross appeal against the said judgment which appeals were allowed thereby giving rise to the instant appeal. ?

HELD

Allowing the appeal, dismissing the cross appeal.

ISSUES

i. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the learned trial judge was wrong to have found that Mr. Davidson fixed a recognizable and legally enforceable boundary between the Ojobo and Torugbene Community?

ii.  Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the learned Trial Judge was wrong in holding that the previous judgments tendered by the Appellants operates as estoppel against the Respondents in favour of the Appellants?

iii. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the learned trial Judge was definitely wrong to have held that the Appellants had proved the extent and identity of the land in dispute. iv. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the learned trial judge did not properly evaluate the evidence adduced at the lower court before entering judgment for the appellants?

v. Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right when they held that the Appellants cannot be said to have proved their case.?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

ESTOPPEL

A plaintiff in an action for declaration of title may plead and rely on a previous judgment in his favour not as res judicata but simply as an estoppel in the sense that it constitutes a relevant fact to the issue in the present action and the judgment will be conclusive of the facts which it decided. Per Onnoghen JSC

CONDITIONS FOR PLEA OF ESTOPPEL

For a plea of estoppel by res judicata to succeed the party relying on it must plead and establish the following:-
(a) that the parties or their privies involved in both the previous and present proceedings are the same.
(b) that the claim or issue in dispute in both proceedings are the same;
(c) that the res judicata or the subject matter of the litigation in the two cases is the same;
(d) that the decision relied upon to support the plea is valid, subsisting and final; and,
(e) that the court that gave the previous decision relied upon to sustain the plea is a court of competent jurisdiction. Per Onnoghen JSC

ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA DISTINGUISHED

If a party pleads a judgment as estoppel, what he is telling the court is simply that the court should take the judgment into consideration in considering the totality of the evidence in the present case. When the plea is res judicata on the other hand, the party is saying that although he has already gotten judgment on the piece or parcel of land, he wants the court to adjudicate on the matter that had already been adjudicated upon in his favour which would be contradictory in terms since he would be asking the court to judge what had already been judged, that is why res judicata is a shield, not a sword particularly as the effect of its being sustained is that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present action over the same subject matter between the same parties or their privies etc, etc. Per Onnoghen JSC

PLEA OF RES JUDICATA AS A SWORD

A plea of estoppel per res judicata is a shield rather than a sword and is accordingly not available to a plaintiff in his statement of claim because if allowed, the plaintiff would in reality be impugning the jurisdiction of the court to entertain his matter since a successful plea of res judicata means that the court is without jurisdiction to hear the new matter. Per Onnoghen JSC

CASES CITED

Idundun vs okumagba, (1976) 10 NSCC 445.Oke vs Atoloye (No.2) (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 15) 241; Yoye vs Olubode (1974) 1 A~I NLR (pt. 2) 118; Fadiora vs Gbadebe (1978) 3 S.C 219ukaegbu vs Ugoji (1991) 6 NWLR (pt. 196) 127Esan vs Olowu (1974) 3 S.C 125. Sha Jnr vs Kwan (2000) 8 NWLR (pt. 670) 685. Romaine vs Romaine (1992) 4 NWLR (pt. 238) 650; Akinola vs Oluwo (1962) 1 SCNLR 352; Ebba vs Ogodo (1984) 1SCNLR 372. Fakuade vs Onwoamanam (1990) 2NWLR (pt. 132) 322; Hayaki vs Dogara (1993) 8 NWLR (pt. 313) 586 at 594.

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT