UMARU WAKILI VS MACI MAI ANGUWA

CORAM

ALBERT GBADEBO ODUYEM -JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL (Delivered the leading judgment)

PARTIES

UMARU WAKILI (for himself and on behalf of Wakili Family of Kodoko Village)    APPELLANTS

MACI MAI ANGUWA     RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant as Plaintiff commenced this action against the Respondent as Defendant at the High Court of Niger State sitting at Minna, wherein the Appellant claimed through an amended statement of claim an order declaring title in his favour in respect of his land, an order for forfeiture against the Respondent, an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondent, his agents or privies from interfering with the Appellant’s interest over the said land, and general damages. The Respondent filed a defence and a counter-claim, he also filed two different applications for the dismissal of the suit on the grounds of res judicata which was not granted. At the close of trial and addresses of learned counsel of both parties, the learned trial Judge on the date reserved for judgment, reviewed the issue of res judicata  and held that the plea was sustained  and accordingly struck out Appellant’s suit. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant has lodged the instant appeal

HELD

Appeal Succeeds

ISSUES

Whether or not it was proper for the learned trial judge to have suo motu raised the issue of res judicata and resolved same without hearing the parties.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM-WHERE THE INGREDIENTS OF PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IT ESTOPPS THE CLAIMANT IN A MATTER WHERE IT IS RAISED FROM MAKING THE SAME CLAIM AS IN THE PREVIOUS CASE.

“The law is that if the ingredients of res judicata have been established, the previous judgment estopps the plaintiff or claimant, in the action in which the plea is raised, from making any claim contrary to the decision in the earlier case. See Fadiora v. Gbadebo (1978) 3 SC 219; Omnia Nig. Ltd v. Dyktrade Ltd. (2007) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1058) 576 and Senator Alphonsus Uba Igbeke v. Lady Margery Okadigbo & 3 Ors. (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1368) 225. Therefore, a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam, if successful, ousts the jurisdiction of the court in respect of the case in which the plea is raised. See Emmanuel Okapa Igwego & 4 Ors. v. Fidelis Ojukwu Ezeugo & Anor. (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 249) 561 at 587, per Ogundare, JSC where the Supreme Court stated that:
A successful plea of estoppel per rem judicatam ousts the jurisdiction of the court before which it is raised -see Yoye v. Olubode (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt. 2) 118, 126 -127” PER M.A.A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A

PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATA – INGREDIENTS TO GROUND A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATA

“The law is that for a plea of estoppel per rem judicata to be successful, certain ingredients must be established. The principal or primary ingredient is that it must be pleaded and proved that there was a previous action. Thereafter it must be shown that:
(i) the parties, the issues, and the subject matter in the earlier action were the same as those in the action which the plea of res judicata has been raised; and
(ii) the judgment in the earlier action was a final judgment.” PER M.A.A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A

PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM – DUTY ON A DEFENDANT RAISING A PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM TO SPECIFICALLY PLEAD THE PREVIOUS JUDGMENT UPON WHICH HE RELIES

“By the very nature of the defence, therefore, a defendant raising a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam must specifically plead the previous judgment upon which he relies”. PER M.A.A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A

RAISING OF MATERIAL ISSUES SUO MOTO BY THE COURT-IT IS WRONG FOR THE COURT TO RAISE MATERIAL ISSUES SUO MOTU AND RESOLVE SAME WITHOUT GIVING THE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD

“The law is settled that it is wrong for a court to raise suo motu and resolve an issue which it considers material without giving the parties, especially the party likely to be adversely affected by the issue, an opportunity to be heard. See Hon. Polycarp Effiom & 3 Ors. v. Cross River State Independent Electoral Commission & Anor. (supra) at 133, where the Supreme Court, per Tabai, JSC stated that:

“Where however the court raises an issue suo motu which it considers material for the proper determination of the case, it must give parties, particularly the party likely to be adversely affected by the issue, to be heard. See Ajuwon v. Akanni (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt 316) 182 at 190; Ajao v. Ashiru (1973) 11 SC 23 at 39-40; Atanda v. Lakanmi (1974) 3 SC 109; Kuti v. Jibowu (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. II) 180 T.E.AM v. N.U.R.T.W. (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt 224) 381; Finnih v. Imade (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 219) 511 at 537.”
– PER M.A.A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A

GROUNDS OF APPEAL –A GROUND FROM WHICH NO ISSUE HAS BEEN DISTILLED IS DEEMED ABANDONED AND IS LIABLE TO BE STRUCK OUT

“The Law is quite settled and it is that a ground from which no issue has been distilled is deemed abandoned and it is liable to be struck out. See Ogun v. Asemah (2002) 4 NWLR (Pt. 756) 208.” PER M.A.A. ADUMEIN, J.C.A

CASES CITED

STATUTES REFERRED TO

None

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT