MR. JACKSON IZEDONMWEN v. MR. ADEMOLA LAWAL
(2019)LCN/13025(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Thursday, the 4th day of April, 2019
CA/B/327/2013
RATIO
ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATA: DEFINITION
Estoppel per rem judicata is the rule that a final decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction once pronounced between parties (which expression includes privies of every kind) cannot be contradicted by any one of such parties as against any other in any subsequent litigation between them respecting the same subject matter. In other words estoppel per rem judicata operates when there has been a final decision by a Court of competent jurisdiction whose decision has not been challenged legally, such as by way of an appeal or if appealed against final decision has been made by competent Court or Courts and that decision is between the parties or their privies, and the issue or subject matter is the same. See BALOGUN VS. ADEJOBI & ANOR (1995) 1 SCNJ 242; ITO VS. EKPE (2000) 2 SCNJ 91; SOSAN & ORS. VS. ODEMUYIWA (1984) 1 NSCC 673; ADEDAYO VS. BABALOLA & ORS. (1995) 7 SCNJ 306.
It is based on the fundamental principle of the administration of justice that there must be an end to litigation (interest republicae ut sit finis litum). See OJEMEN & ORS. VS. MOMODU II & ORS. (1983) 14 NSCC 135 and ARO VS. FABOLUDE (1983) 14 NSCC 43; IBERO VS. UME-OHANA (1993) 2 SCNJ 156.PER SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.
ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATA: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PLEA TO SUCCEED
For a plea of estoppel per rem judicata to succeed, the party relying on it must plead and establish the following:
(a) that the parties or their privies involved in both the previous and present suits are the same.
(b) that the subject matter of litigation in the two cases is identical, and
(c) that the claim and the issue in the two cases are the same.
See IGWEGO VS. EZEUGO (1992) 7 SCNJ 284; RICHARD EZEANYA & ORS VS. GABRIEL OKEKE & ORS. (1995) 4 SCNJ 60; CHUKWURA VS. A.J. OFOCHEBE(1972) 12 SC 189.PER SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.
JUDGEMENT: A JUDGMENT WILL NOT BE DONE AWAY WITH SIMPLY BECAUSE THE REASONING WAS WRONG
What is more, assuming but not conceding that the reasoning of the learned trial Judge is found to be wrong by referring to the reliefs or claim instead of the issue, the law is long settled that where a decision of a Court is right, the reason given to so holding is immaterial. In other words, where the decision of a Court is correct in every material particular, a wrong reason will not upstage that correct decision. See ODUNLAMI VS. NIGERIAN NAVY (2013) 12 NWLR (PT. 1367) 20; also in I.P.D ABAYE VS. IKEM UCHE OFILI & ANOR (1986) 1 SC 231, the Supreme Court held per Karibi-Whyte JSC that:
It is well settled in our jurisprudence that where a judgment of the Court is right, and only the reason for the judgment are wrong, the appellate Court will not interfere with the judgment merely because of the wrong reasons.
See also DAIRO VS. UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2007) 16 NWLR (PT. 1059) 99; MUSA VS. IBRAHIM (2018) LPELR 44371 (CA).PER SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
MOORE ASEIMO ABRAHAM ADUMEIN Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
MR. JACKSON IZEDONMWEN Appellant(s)
AND
MR. ADEMOLA LAWAL Respondent(s)
SAMUEL CHUKWUDUMEBI OSEJI, J.C.A.(Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court of Edo State sitting in Benin City and delivered on the 11th day of December, 2012 wherein the preliminary objection filed by the Defendant was upheld and the claimant?s suit dismissed.
The Appellant herein had as claimant in the lower Court commenced an action against the defendant (now Respondent) in his capacity as an agent to the Sanni?s family wherein he claimed as per paragraph 25 of the statement of claim dated 28/3/2011 as follows:
WHEREOF, the Plaintiff?s claim against the Defendant as follows:-
(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner or the best person entitled to the grant of a Certificate of Occupancy to that said premises situates at and known as No. 17,Mission Road, Benin City.
(b) A declaration that the issuance of a Quit Notice by the Defendant to the tenants of house No. 17, Mission Road, Benin City amounts to trespass and is unlawful.
(c) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant his agents, servants? privies and any
1
other person connected with him from entering the said building or dealing with same which is contrary to the right or interest of the Plaintiff.?
The Defendant (now Respondent) reacted by filing a statement of defence dated 1/6/2011. This was followed by a notice of preliminary objection filed on 21/9/2012, wherein he sought the following orders.
AN ORDER of this Honourable Court Striking out/Dismissing the suit on the ground that the Honourable Court lacks the requisite Jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the ground upon which this objection is predicated are as follows:
a. The suit is caught by Estoppel per Rem Judicata.
b. The Suit is a gross abuse of Court process.
c. Judgment had earlier been given on Monday, 20th May, 1940 in respect of the landed property the subject matter of this suit in Appeal No. 38 BETWEEN IZEDONME OGBEIDE ISSI (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT AND SANNI (DEFENDANT/APPLICANT) in the Court of Governor holding at Ibadan, Nigeria before His Honour Mr. G.C. Whiteley, C.M.G. Chief Commissioner, Western Provinces in which case the Plaintiff/Respondent in this suit is the
2
son/successor-in-title of the then Plaintiff/Respondent while the Defendant/Applicant in this suit is the Agent/Caretaker to the family/successor-in-title of the then Defendant/Appellant in favour of whom judgment was given in 1940.
d. Ruling had also been given on Monday, 12th August, 1968 in respect of the landed property the subject matter of this Suit in Suit No. B/56/67 BETWEEN IZEDOMWEN OGBEIDE ISI (PLAINTIFF) AND TANIMOWO SANNI & ANOR. (DEFENDANTS) in the High Court of Justice, Mid-Western State of Nigeria, in the Benin Judicial Division by His Lordship Hon. Justice Samuel). Ighodaro in which case the Plaintiff/Respondent in this present suit is also the son/successor-in-title of the then Plaintiff while the Defendant/Applicant in this present suit is also the Agent/Caretaker to the then Defendants in favour of whom the ruling was delivered with cost against the then Plaintiff.
e. The suit is brought against the privies of same parties in the previous suits and on same subject matter.?
The said notice of preliminary objection was supported by a 10 paragraph affidavit deposed to by the Respondent.
3
Attached to the said affidavit are Exhibits ?A?, ?B?, ?B1? and ?C?.
The parties subsequently filed and served their written addresses which they also adopted and relied on.
In a Ruling delivered on 11/12/2012, the learned trial Judge in upholding the preliminary objection and dismissing the suit held at page 51 of the record of appeal as follows:
In conclusion, I find and hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter as the subject matter, same issue and parties been determined on appeal by the Hon. Whitely Chief Commissioner Western Province on the 20th May 1940 in Izedonmwen Ogbeide Issi V. Sanni in appeal No. 38, and in Izedonmwen Ogbeide Issi V. Twnimowo Sanni & 1 or in sit No. B/56/67, by Ighodaro J. at the High Court Benin City, Mid Western State on the 12th August 1968. The Defendant/Applicant objection is upheld and this suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.?
The said Ruling was not acceptable to the Appellant who consequently filed a notice of appeal on 18/12/2012. The two grounds of appeal with their particulars are hereinbelow set out.
4
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
GROUND ONE
The learned trial Judge erred in law when she upheld the preliminary objection filed by the Respondent at the lower Court and dismissed the suit on the ground of Res Judicata.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The learned trial Judge, with due respect failed to appreciate that the issues determined by the previous Judgment relied upon were different from the issues in this suit.
(b) The learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the issue resolved in the said previous Judgment was leasehold and not ownership, it was a grave error.
(c) The learned trial Judge was confusing relief in a claim with issues determined. They are different.
(d) The learned trial Judge was one sided in considering submissions on the issues. She did not consider the vital submissions made by the Appellant in the argument on the preliminary objection. The error was grave.
GROUND TWO
The learned trial Judge erred in law for relying on facts stated in the Reply to the Statement of Defence, when trial or evidence was not taken.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR
(a) The learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that in a proceeding like this, the
5
Court ought to have gone into trial in order to resolve the life issues in the present case, which is the identity of the subject matter and the issue of ownership and not leasehold.
(b) The learned trial Judge strangely relied on the said pleadings, when it is elementary that pleadings are not evidence.
Briefs of argument were thereafter filed and served by the parties who adopted same at the hearing of the appeal on 7/2/2019.
In the Appellant?s brief of argument settled by Edward Aibangbee (KSJ) and filed on 28/4/2014 but deemed properly filed on 7/2/2019 a sole issue was distilled for determination as follows:
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in dismissing the suit of the Appellant on the ground that it was caught up with the doctrine of res judicata.
Arguing on the said issue, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge erred in law when she dismissed the Appellant?s suit on the ground that it was caught up with the doctrine of Res Judicata.
He contended that for a successful plea of res judicata, the law requires that the identity of the parties or their
6
privies, the subject matter of the action and the claim as well as the issues and the parties in both the previous and present action must be the same otherwise the plea will not be tenable. He relied on the following cases.
IKOTUN VS. OYEKANMI (2008) 10 NWLR (PT. 1094) 100 at 166; ONAJOKO VS. ODUNLAMI (2000) 8 NWLR (PT. 667) 71 at 80.
It was further submitted that in the instant case the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the point that the issue raised in the previous judgment and the present suit are not the same but she confused the difference between reliefs with issues for determination.
He added that Exhibit C as a matter of law and fact did not finally resolve the issues of title or ownership in favour of Sanni and by the decision reached therein show clearly that it did not finally decide the issue of ownership of the land referred to even if the said land is the same with the one in dispute.
Relying on the case of AYUYA VS. YONRIN (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1254) 135 and ARO VS. ARO (2000) 3 NWLR (PT. 649) 443, it was submitted that all the conditions required for a successful plea of res judicata must co-exist
7
and a break in the chain shall render the plea unsustainable. It was submitted that the learned trial Judge confused reliefs in a claim with the issues for determination in a matter hence in the ruling she referred to the reliefs in the previous judgment and compared it with the reliefs in the present suit before concluding that they are the same and this constitutes a profound error given the definition of ?Reliefs? as against ?Issue? in Black?s Law Dictionary 9th Edition.
He further argued that the previous judgment did not decide the issue of ownership but that of leasehold unlike the present suit which is hinged on ownership of the subject matter which was never decided and it is the determination of the issues that brings the matter to finality and estops further litigation.
It was therefore urged on this Court to allow the appeal.
In the Respondent?s brief of argument filed on 26/5/14 but deemed properly filed 7/2/2019, a sole issue similar to that of the Appellant was formulated for determination.
Arguing on the said issue A.M. Isah of counsel for the Respondent submitted that the learned trial Judge was right
8
in law to have dismissed the Appellant?s suit while upholding the preliminary objection on the ground that the suit was caught by estoppel per rem judicata.
He listed the factors for a successful plea of res judicata as:
(a) The parties/privies must be the same.
(b) The issues involved and/or the subject matter of the suit must be the same.
(c) The case sought to be relied upon in the subsequent suit was adjudicated upon by a Court of com
