Muda Anwoyi & Ors V. John Bankole Shodeke & Ors (2006)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

KALGO, J.S.C.

In this appeal, there are only two issues for the determination of this court and agreed to by the parties. Issue 1, which is the most important and substantive deals with once more with issue estoppel per rem judicatam.

The case giving rise to this appeal has a very long protracted antecedent which must be set out clearly for a better understanding of the issues involved.

In suit No. IK/21/67, the respondents, as plaintiffs sued the appellants on behalf of the Beku-Onimaba family for declaration, N400.00 damages for trespass and injunction in respect of a parcel of land measuring 118.7 acres only contained in a survey plan admitted as exhibit ‘A’. The appellants did not file any counter-claim but at the end of the trial, the respondents’ case was dismissed in its entirety by Oshodi J. They appealed to the Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed. They further appealed to the Supreme Court in case No. SC. 184/89 and it was again dismissed. The judgment of the Supreme Court is on pages 962 – 1002 of the record. Thereafter, the appellants proceeded to eject the respondents and their tenants from the land in dispute as in exhibit ‘A’ and also from the larger area of land covering 596.7 acres contained in survey plans, exhibits F. and G. in IK/21167. This resulted in a fresh action by the respondents against the appellants in suit No ID/60/92 – J. B. Shodeke & Ors v. Muda Anwoyi & Ors which gave rise to the instant appeal.

In suit No ID/60/92, the parties filed their respective pleadings.

The appellants who were the defendants raised a counter-claim and at the end of the trial, Longe J. granted all the claims of the respondents (except inquiry as to damages) and dismissed in its entirety the counter-claim of the appellants.

The appellants were dissatisfied with this decision and they appealed to the Court of Appeal. In appeal No. CA/L/460/98, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as lacking in merit. They now appealed to this court.

In this court, the parties filed and exchanged their respective briefs between them. The appellant formulated two issues for the determination of the court which read:

“(1) Whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that the decision in IK/21/67, CA/L/43/87 and SC.184/89 do not create issue estoppel to bar the respondents from relitigating the issues decided therein.

2. If issue estoppel is not applicable, whether in the circumstances of the case now on appeal, the Court of Appeal was right to confirm the High Court judgment dismissing the appellants’ counter-claim”.

The respondents’ counsel in his brief, also raised only 2 issues which are substantially the same as those of the appellants. I shall consider the appellants’ issues.

Issue (1)

This deals with the legal principle or doctrine of res judicata, issue estoppel or estoppel per rem judicatam. They all point to the same thing and are usually used in court as a defence to an action.

They are used to show that the issue or issues raised in an action in court have been determined and adjudicated in a previous action by a court of competent jurisdiction and so cannot be relitigated in any court. It is in fact a complete defence to any subsequent action. What the respondents are saying in their brief on this issue is that the reliefs claimed by the appellants in suit No. ID/60/92 have already been litigated and determined in suits numbers 1K/21/67; CA/L/43/87 and SC. 184/89 and cannot be relitigated again. This makes it incumbent upon me to set out in some detail, the reliefs claimed in the 2 cases before the High Courts and the decisions reached thereon and the decision of the Supreme Court in SC. 184/89. I shall use the final pleadings of the parties at the trial. In suit No. IK/21/67 the reliefs claimed by the respondents as plaintiffs as per their further amended statement of claim (pages 1048 – 1053) are:

1. “A declaration that the Beku-Onimoba family are the absolute owners under native law and custom of the land in dispute.
2. N400.00 special and general damages for trespass to the said land.
3. An injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and/or agents, from further trespass.”

At the end of the trial, Oshodi J. in a considered judgment I delivered on 23rd August 1986 dismissed the respondents’ claims with costs. The respondents’ appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed as being without merit.