Daniel Tayar Trans Ent.nig.co.ltd. V. Alhaji Liadi Busari (2011)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

ONNOGHEN, J.S.C.

This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Holden at Lagos in appeal No. CA/L/303/2000 delivered on the 30th day of June, 2003 in which the court dismissed the appeal of the appellant against the ruling of the High Court of Lagos State in suit No. ID/2321/94 delivered on the 18th day of December, 1998.

The respondents, as plaintiffs at the trial court instituted an action against the appellants claiming:

(1) A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the statutory Right of Occupancy in respect of the land in dispute edged blue on the composite plan No. APAT/LA/428/1994 of 29th December, 1994.

(2) N200, 000 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) being damages against the Defendants for trespass.

(3) Perpetual Injunction.

Pleadings were duly exchanged between the parties and the matter proceeded to trial in the course of which the appellant brought an application by way of summons on Notice filed on 31st July, 1998 praying the court for the following reliefs:

“1. AN ORDER STRIKING OUT the Plaintiffs’ claims as OFFENDING THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA in that the very matter in issue has been decided by the Supreme Court between the parties or those claiming through them.

2. AN ORDER GIVING THE APPLICANT JUST A VERY SHORT DATE to prove its counter claims.”

The judgment of the Supreme Court in appeal No. S.C/24/1979 delivered on the 14th day of November, 1980 was exhibited to the summons and marked as exhibit B in addition to other documents. At the conclusion of arguments on the application, the trial court held that the principle or doctrine of res judicata does not apply to the facts of the case and dismissed the application, resulting in an appeal by the appellant to the Court of Appeal, the result of which I had earlier stated in this judgment. It is, however, instructive to note that one of the grounds of appeal which formed an issue before the lower court was an attack on the learned trial judge by way of imputation of improper conduct as a judicial officer.

However, in the instant appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant, TONY ANOZIA ESQ, in the appellant brief of argument filed on 7th October, 2005 has formulated the following issues for determination, to wit:-

“1. Whether the 6th – 8th Defendants (the Okokomaiko Community) were parties to the consent Judgment of the Supreme Court of 1980.

2. Whether Joinder of issues in the sense of Formal Statement of Claim and Statement of Defence is a condition precedent for the bindings of a consent judgment on parties.
3. Whether the consent judgment of the Supreme Court of 1980 found the issue of ownership of the parcel claimed by the 6th – 8th Defendants therein (id est Okokomaiko Community) to rest.
4. What, in view of the failure of the lower court to resolve the issues of sameness of:

(i) Parties

(ii) Subject matter

(iii) Claims