EZE INNOCENT C. EZEALA & ORS v. CHIEF AHAMEFULA UGAH & ORS
(2019)LCN/13857(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 7th day of March, 2019
CA/OW/396/2013
RATIO
RES JUDICATA: ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS
From the above, it is clear that for a plea of res judicata to apply:
1) The parties in the previous suit and the new suit must be the same, or privies thereto.
2) The subject matter/issue must be the same in the two cases
3) The decision in the previous suit must have come from a competent Court/tribunal and was a final decision on the issue/subject.
This is founded on the principle that, there must be an end to a litigation. See the case of Cole Vs Jibunoh & Ors (2016) LPELR ? 40662 (SC); Balogun VsAdejobi & Anor (1995) LPELR ? 724 SC Sylva Vs INEC &Ors (2015) LPELR ? 24447 SC. PER ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
WHETHER THE SAME PERSON CAN BE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IN THE SAME CASE
In the case of Okeahialam & Anor vs Nwamara & Ors (2003) FWLR (Pt.176) 633; (2003) LPELR ? 2429 SC, it was held:
The general rule is that the same person can not be both a plaintiff and a defendant in the same case. However, in my opinion, that general rule, strictly understood, is only applicable to parties actually before the Court. The distinction between the parties named in the proceedings and persons represented in the proceedings is always present. In a representatives proceedings, for instance, a person represented in but not a party to the proceedings cannot have the judgment in the representative proceedings enforced against him, without leave, whereas it would have been so enforceable against the defendant or defendants, actually before the Court. I am of the same view as the Court below, that in a representative action, the person who named himself as a plaintiff suing the defendant in a representative capacity must be deemed to have excluded himself from the class represented by the representative Defendant. It defies reason to argue that a person who has sued a defendant as representing an association to which, he belongs, for wrongfully acting against his interest must be deemed to be represented as a defendant by the named defendant, merely because he did not expressly state that he had exempted himself, just as it would have defied reason to presume that he had alleged a wrong committed by himself against himself.? (Underlining mine). PER ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
RITA NOSAKHARE PEMU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. EZE INNOCENT C. EZEALA
2. CHIEF A.S. ANYANWU
3. CHIEF OLUCHI ALUGWE
4. CHIEF SUNDAY UDEH
5. MR. NATHANIEL IROH Appellant(s)
AND
1. CHIEF AHAMEFULA UGAH
2. MR. EMMANUEL O. AZUBUIKE
3. CHIEF NNABUIHE NWAEKPO
4. MR. GABRIEL UGBAJAH
5. EZE-ELECT CHIEF MOSES CHIMEREMUEZE UGAH
6. MRS. VICTORIA OHAERI-JOHN
7. MRS. NGOZI UGBOH
(For themselves and as representing Ibe Uzoh Progressive Union, Oboro, Ikwuano L.G.A)
8. THE GOVERNOR OF ABIA STATE
9. THE COMMISSIONER FOR L.G.A. CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS, ABIA STATE
10. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR JUSTICE, ABIA STATE
11. THE CHAIRMAN, IKWUANO L.G. COUNCIL Respondent(s)
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the interlocutory decision of Abia State High Court in Suit No. HIK/21/2012, delivered by Hon. Justice U.D. Enwereji on 20/6/2013, wherein the learned trial Judge dismissed the application by Defendants (now Appellants) who sought to strike out the Suit on the grounds that:
(1) The 1st to 7th Respondents (Plaintiffs) lacked the locus standi to initiate the action and;
(2) The Court had no competence to decide an issue which had previously been decided by another Judge of the High Court of Abia State in Suit No. HU/158/2006, regarding the fitness or otherwise of the 5th Appellant to assume the position of Traditional Ruler of Ibe-Uzo Amawom Oboro Autonomous Community in Ikwuano L.G.A. of Abia State.
At the trial Court, the Claimants (now 1st to 7th Respondents) had claimed against the Defendants (1st to 5th Appellants herein and the 8th to 11th Respondents) as follows:
(a) A declaration that the (sic) defendant is not a member of Ibe-Uzo Amawom Autonomous Community, Ikwuano L.G.A. within the meaning and intendment of Section 2 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law, Cap 166 Laws of Abia State.
(b) A declaration that the 5th Defendant is not a fit and proper person for recognition as Traditional Ruler of Ibe-Uzo Amawom Autonomous Community, he not being a native of Ibe-Uzo Amawom within the contemplation of the Custom, tradition and usages of Ibe-Uzo Autonomous Community.
(c) A declaration that the 7th and 8th Defendants are not the duly elected President-General and Secretary-General respectively of Ibe-Uzo Progressive Union.
(d) A declaration that the purported identification, selection, appointment and installation of the 5th defendant offends Section 7(6) (a) (b) of the Traditional Rulers & Autonomous Communities Law, Cap 166 Laws of Abia State, being contrary to the Customary Law of Ibe-Uzo Autonomous Community.
(e) A declaration that the purported presentation of the 5th defendant to the 4th under the direction of the 7th defendant, on 17th November, 2006 or any other date is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of Ibe-Uzo Autonomous Community and is therefore illegal, void and of no effect.
(f) An order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to de-recognize the 5th Defendant as the traditional Ruler of Ibe-Uzo Amawom Autonomous Community in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(d) of the Traditional Rulers & Autonomous Communities Law of Abia State.
(g) An Order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to recognize the 5th Claimant as the duly identified, selected installed and presented Eze of Ibe-Uzo Autonomous Community in compliance with the provions of Section 7(3) (4) of the Traditional Rulers & Autonomous Communities Law of Abia State.
(h) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 7th and 8th Defendants by themselves or through their servants agents or proxies from holding themselves out as President-General and/or Secretary-General of Ibe-Uzo Progressive Union, or howsoever interfering with or obstructing the due exercise of the functions of the said offices of the said union by the 1st and 2nd Claimants or their successors.
(i) An Order of perpetual injunction restrain (sic) and forbidding the 5th and 6th Defendants from assuming or adopting or using or arrogating to themselves, respectively, the titles ?Eze? and Traditional Prime Minister of Ibe-Uzo Autonomous Community, or howsoever holding themselves out as such.? See pages 11 ? 12 of the Records of Appeal.
Appellants (as 5th to 9th Defendants) had filed a motion at the Lower Court on 12/3/2013, alleging abuse of the process and challenging the locus Standi of the claimants (1st to 7th Respondents) as well as the competence of the Court to entertain the claims of the Plaintiffs, particularly, on the question of the fitness or otherwise of the 1st Appellant to assume the position of the traditional ruler of Ibe-Uzo Amawom Autonomous Community, the same (according to them) having been determined in Suit No. HU/158/2006 by the Hon. Justice T.U. Uzokwe of the State High Court. (See pages 213 to 216 of the Records of Appeal).
The Ruling of the trial Judge, dismissing that application forms the premise of this Appeal. The trial Court had held on pages 244 ? 246, as follows:
?In my view the parties are not the same. For instance, the 5th Defendant on record was not a party in the previous Suit HU/158/2006 and others too. The subject matter in the two cases and (sic) not also the same. In HU/158/06 front loaded and which is part of the records of this Court, the claimants claimed the following reliefs:
(a) A declaration that the (sic) defendant is not a member of Ibe-Uzo Amawom Autonomous Community, Ikwuano L.G.A. within the meaning and intendment of Section 2 of the Traditional Rulers and Autonomous Communities Law, Cap 166 Laws of Abia State.
(b) A declaration that the 5th Defendant is not a fit and proper person for recognition as Traditional Ruler of Ibe-Uzo Amawom Autonomous Community, he not being a native of Ibe-Uzo Amawom within the contemplation of the Custom, tradition and usages of Ibe-Uzo Autonomous Community.
(c) A declaration that the 7th and 8th Defendants are not the duly elected President-General and Secretary-General respectively of Ibe-Uzo Progressive Union.
(d) A declaration that the purported identification, selection, appointment and installation of the 5th defendant offends Section 7(6) (a) (b) of the Traditional Rulers & Autonomous Communities Law, Cap 166 Laws of Abai State, being contrary Autonomous Community.
(e) A declaration that the purported presentation of the 5th defendant to the 4th under the direction of the 7th defendant, on 17th November, 2006 or any other date is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of Ibe-Uze Autonomous Community and is therefore illegal, void and of no effect.
(f) An order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to de-recognize the 5th Defendant as the traditional Ruler of Ibe-Uzo Amawom Autonomous Community in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(d) of the Traditional Rulers & Autonomous Communities Law of Abia State.
(g) An Order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to recognize the 5th Claimant as the duly identified, selected installed and presented Eze of Ibe-Uzo Autonomous Community in compliance with the provions of Section 7(3) (4) of the Traditional Rulers & Autonomous Communities Law of Abia State.
(h) An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the 7th and 8th Defendants by themselves or through their servants, agents or proxies from holding themselves out as President-General and/or Secretary-General of Ibe-Uzo Progressive Union, or howsoever interfering with or obstructing the due exercise of the functions of the said offices of the said union by the 1st and 2nd Claimants or their successors.
(i) An Order of perpetual injunction restrain (sic) and forbidding the 5th and 6th Defendants from assuming or adopting or using or arrogating to themselves respectively the titles ?Eze? and Traditional Prime Minister of Ibe-Uzo Autonomous Community, or howsoever holding themselves out as such.?
In the present Suit HIK/21/2012, the reliefs are contained in paragraphs 44(a) ? (i%
