DANIEL TAYAR TRANS ENT. NIG. CO. LTD V. ALHAJI LIADI BUSARI

CORAM

ALOMA MARIAM MUKHTAR, JUSTICE,SUPREME COURT

WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, JUSTICE,SUPREME COURT

FRANCIS FEDODE TABAI, JUSTICE,SUPREME COURT

MUHAMMADU SAIFULLAHI MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE, JUSTICE,SUPREME COURT

PARTIES

DANIEL TAYAR TRANS ENT. NIG. CO. LTD APPELLANTS

1. ALHAJI LIADI BUSARI

2. LAMIDI YUSUF DARAMOLA (For themselves and as representatives of Ashade Family of Iba Town)

RESPONDENTS 

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, LAND LAW, RES JUDICATA, PROPERTY LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The respondents, as plaintiffs at the trial Court,
instituted an action against the appellants claiming declaration of statutory
right of occupancy over land in dispute, damages for trespass, and perpetual
injunction. The appellant brought an application seeking to strike out the
plaintiffs’ claims on grounds that they offended the doctrine of res judicata,
arguing that the matter had been previously decided by the Supreme Court between
the parties or those claiming through them. The application referenced a 1980
Supreme Court consent judgment (appeal No. S.C/24/1979) which had dealt with
land disputes between various communities including Iba, Ojo, and Okokomaiko
communities. The trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the
principle of res judicata did not apply. The appellant appealed to the Court of
Appeal, which affirmed the trial Court’s decision. The appellant then further
appealed to the Supreme Court.

HELD

1.     The appeal was allowed.

2.     The judgments of the lower Courts were set aside.

3.     The summons on Notice of the appellant filed on 31st July 1998 was ordered as prayed.

4.     Costs were assessed at N10,000 at the trial Court, N30,000 at the lower Court and N50,000 in the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1.     Whether there was a consent judgment by the Supreme Court in 1980 and if so, whether the principles/doctrine of res judicata apply to the facts of this case ?

2.     Whether the lower Courts were right in holding that the principle/doctrine of res judicata did not apply to the facts of this case ?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA – MEANING AND APPLICATION

“It is simply that once a dispute or matter has been finally and judicially pronounced upon or determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction, neither the parties thereto nor their privies can subsequently be allowed to relitigate the matter because a judicial determination properly handed down is conclusive until reversed by an Appellate Court.” – Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.S.C.

CONDITIONS FOR RES JUDICATA – REQUIREMENTS TO BE ESTABLISHED

“For a successful plea of res judicata, this Court has decided, by a long line of cases that the following conditions must be established by the party relying on it:-

(a) that the parties or their privies in both the earlier case and the case in which it is raised are the same:

(b) that the judgment relied upon is valid, subsisting and final;

(c) that the claim or issue in dispute in the proceedings are the same;

(d) that the subject matter of the litigation in both cases is the same; and,

(e) that the Court that decided the previous suit is a court of competent jurisdiction.” – Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.S.C.

CONSENT JUDGMENT – NATURE AND EFFECT

“The rule is that action may be settled by consent during the trial, usually such settlement is a compromise and in order to have a binding effect on the parties, it is imperative that it should have the blessing of the Court. Settlement between parties may be described as a contract whereby new rights are created between them in substitution for, and in consideration of, the abandonment of the claim or claims pending before the Court.” – Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.S.C.

CONSENT JUDGMENT – REQUIREMENTS FOR VALIDITY

“Consent judgment is a contract whereby new rights are created between the parties in substitution for and in consideration of the abandonment of the claim(s) pending before the Court, it does not matter whether at the stage in which it was entered, the defendant had filed a defence to the claim(s) of the plaintiff or the plaintiff has filed a defence to a counter claim or that evidence had been called or issues resolved. What matters is the agreement of the parties concerned.” – Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.S.C.

EFFECT OF CONSENT JUDGMENT ON LAND RIGHT

“It is therefore my considered opinion that this Court affirmed the consent judgment of 1972 subject to the rights of the 6th to 8th defendants as evidenced in their claims before the Court, particularly in survey plan No. CW 649/62 of 20/11/62, and as consented to by all the parties to the consent judgment of 1980.” – Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.S.C.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – RELATIONSHIP WITH RATIO DECIDENDI

“For an issue or issues arising from the grounds of appeal to be relevant, its resolution in favour of the appellant ought to result in the setting aside of the judgment concerned, else it is an exercise in futility as it is not every error committed by a lower Court that would lead to the judgment being set aside.” – Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.S.C.

RES JUDICATA AS A DEFENSE – PROPER APPLICATION

“The plea of res judicata is however available to a defendant as a shield and not to be employed by a plaintiff as a sword as the legal effect of its sustainance by the Court amounts to a decision to the effect that the Court before which it has been raised has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.” – Per Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, J.S.C.

ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL BIAS – THRESHOLD FOR PROOF

“The fact that a Judge erred or committed a grave error in the determination of a matter is not a prima facie evidence of bias. There must be clear hard evidence in the record to back or prove the allegation of bias.” – Per Saiffulahi Muhammed Muntaka-Coomassie, J.S.C.

PURPOSE OF APPELLATE COURTS – REVIEW OF DECISIONS

“Appellate Courts were established to review or hear a matter decided by the lower Courts in order to determine the correctness or otherwise of the decision.” – Per Saiffulahi Muhammed Muntaka-Coomassie, J.S.C.

ETHNIC CONSIDERATIONS IN JUDICIAL DECISIONS – IMPROPRIETY

“A day a Nigerian would believe he would not obtain justice by reason of the ethnic background of the Presiding Judge would mark the beginning of the collapse of our judicial system. What is constant in our judicial system is justice and not ethnicity or tribalism.” – Per Saiffulahi Muhammed Muntaka-Coomassie, J.S.C.

REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AND RES JUDICATA – EFFECT OF JUDGMENT

“A judgment obtained by a party in a representative capacity binds every member who falls within the group or persons represented.” – Per Saiffulahi Muhammed Muntaka-Coomassie, J.S.C.

PLEADING OF ESTOPPEL – REQUIREMENTS

“It is not necessary to plead estoppel in any particular form so long as the matter constituting estoppel is stated in such a manner as to show that the party pleading relies upon it as a defence or answer.” – Per Saiffulahi Muhammed Muntaka-Coomassie, J.S.C.

APPLICATION OF RES JUDICATA TO LAND CLAIMS

“As long as the part of the claims in this case concerns the claim of Iba community which formed the basis of the ‘consent judgment’ of this Court, that part of the claim is caught by the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicata.” – Per Saiffulahi Muhammed Muntaka-Coomassie, J.S.C.

CASES CITED

1. Agu vs. Ikamba (1991) 3 NWLR (pt. 180) 3852.  Ebba vs. Igodo (2000) 10 NWLR (pt. 675) 3073.  Ajiboye vs. Ishola (2006) 13NWLR (pt.998) 6284.  Fadiora vs. Gbadebo (1978) 3 S.C 2195.  Ekpose vs. Osiolo (1978) 6-7 S.C 1876.  Ezenwa vs. Kareem (1990) 3NWLR (pt. 138) 2587.  Ademola vs. Odiese (1990) I NWLR (pt. 125) 1658.  Chukura vs. Ofochebe (1972) 12 S.C , 189

STATUTES REFERRED TO

1.     Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)

2.     Evidence Act 1990

3.     Western Region High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1958

4.     Lagos State Civil Procedure Rules 1994

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT