CORAM

---

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA

FATIMA OMORO AKINBAMI

JAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR

---

PARTIES

---

YUSUF MUSA

APPELLANTS 

---

IDI SAMORE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

APPEAL, COURT, ESTOPPEL, JUDGMENT AND ORDER, LAND LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, RES JUDICATA

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellant commenced this action in respect of a piece of land measuring about 3 hectres situate at Kapo village, Ribadu District, Fufore Local Government Area, before the Upper Area Court against the Respondents, wherein he sought for declaratory and Injunctive reliefs; general damages; and cost of litigation. In reaction to the Appellant’s claim, the Respondents filed a preliminary objection challenging the suit on the ground of estoppel per rem judicata, to which the Appellant filed a Counter Affidavit. The trial Court in its ruling dismissed the preliminary Objection and the Respondents appealed to the High Court, which also dismissed the Appellant’s case at the trial Upper Area Court No. 3 Yola, on the ground of estoppel per rem judicata.  The Appellant dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower court appealed to the Court of Appeal, Yola Division.

 

---

HELD

---

Appeal Dismissed

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Court below was right in dismissing the Appellant’s Suit No. UAC3Y/CV/F1/130/2016 between Appellant and Respondents at the Upper Area Court No. 3 Yola on the ground of estoppel per Rem judicata when the parties are not the same, the subject matters of the suits are different and when evidence shows that the plaintiff is not a privy to any of the parties to the previous suits?

Whether the Learned High Court Judge was right when he relied upon Exhibit D in support of the preliminary objection in holding that the Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s case at the trial court was Rem judicatam when the judgment in Exhibit D was since set aside by this court in Appeal No. CA/YL/151/2017 and when no argument of estoppel was canvassed upon Exhibit D at the Court below?

Whether the Court below was right in upholding the preliminary objection of the Respondents on the ground of estoppel per Rem judicatam when all the previous judgments relied upon and attached as exhibits A, B and C did not finally determine the rights of the parties to the suits?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM – CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE FULFILLED FOR A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM

---

“For a plea of estoppel per rem judicatam to apply, the following conditions must be met:

1.The parties must be the same (which means that parties involved in both proceedings must be the same or by their privies).

2.The same question must be for decision in both proceedings (which means that the question for decision in the earlier proceedings must be the same as the current proceedings).

3.The decision relied upon to support the plea of issue estoppel must be final.

4.The court that gave the previous decision relied upon must be a court of competent jurisdiction.

See, Yoye Vs. Olubode & Ors (1974) (SC) PP. 13 – 14, PARAS. F – A, Alashe & Ors VS. Olori – Ilu & Ors (1964) LPELR – 25161 (SC) P. 8, PARAS. D – E, Yanaty Petrochemical Ltd VS. EFCC (2017) LPELR – 43473 (SC) PP. 55 – 56, PARAS . D – A and Wilbros West Africa, Inc. & Ors. Vs. Mcdonnel Contract Mining Ltd (2021) LPELR – 54544 (CA) PP. 60 – 61, PARAS. F – C.  As rightly submitted by the learned counsel to the Appellant, the burden lies on the party who sets up the defence of estoppel per rem judicata to establish the listed conditions above. -PER C. N. UWA, J.C.A

 

---

PLEA OF RES JUDICATA – OPERATION OF THE PLEA OF RES JUDICATA

---

“The law is that a plea of res judicata will operate over a small portion of land litigated upon, such portion may be a smaller area or part of a larger portion of land and not over the entire larger portion.  On the other hand as in the present case, where a large portion of land has been litigated upon before a competent court, a re-litigation over a smaller portion of the earlier litigated larger portion is caught up by the plea of res judicata.  See, Aro Vs. Fabolude (1983) (supra). -PER C. N. UWA, J.C.A

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available

 

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT