CORAM

---

GEORGE S. SOWEMIMO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

MOHAMMED BELLO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

KAYODE ESO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

---

PARTIES

---

WILLIAM LADEGA & ORS

APPELLANTS 

---

SHITTU DUROSIMI & ORS

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- RES JUDICATA/ PROPERTY LAW

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

In the pleadings filed, pursuant to the order of the court, both parties claimed title to the land in dispute, by settlement. The defendants however averred that, as a result of decisions in previous litigation between the parties, the plaintiffs were estopped from instituting the action.

 

---

HELD

---

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs could not relitigate the issue.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Not Available

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

---

“The doctrine of res judicata, which finds expression in the maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et cadem causa, lays emphasis on the “causa”, It is the cause of action that would have been determined and any suit, brought to relitigate such action, which has been determined, would be dismissed. Where, however, what is raised is an issue estoppel, then, it is only in regard to that issue, that has been raised that the parties to an action, shall be bound, and the proper course to take would be one of striking out all the paragraphs in the pleadings raising that issue.

Though the whole concept of ‘estoppel’ is viewed as a substantive rule of law (see Heystead v. Co. Commissioner of Taxation (1926) AC 155 at pp. 165-166 and also Canada and Dominion Sugar Coy. Ltd. v. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Ltd. (1947) AC 46 at p. 56), it is essentially a rule of evidence.” Per ESO, JSC

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Heystead v. Co. Commissioner of Taxation (1926) AC 155 at pp. 165-166

Canada and Dominion Sugar Coy. Ltd. v. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Ltd. (1947) AC 46 at p. 56

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT