Chief Paul Otuyah & Ors v. Chief Vincent Olie & Ors (2025)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

HARUNA SIMON TSAMMANI, JSC (Delivering the leading judgment)

This appeal is against judgment of the Court of Appeal sitting at the Benin Division delivered on the 23rd day of February 2007.

By a writ of summons and statement of claim filed on the 26th day of January, 1988, the appellants who were the plaintiffs sought the following reliefs:

1. A declaration that the 1st to 3rd defendants consistently violate the fundamental terms of the consent judgment in the consolidated suits Nos. UHC/43/71, UHC/50/71 and UHC/70/71.
2. A declaration that 1st to 3rd defendants while consistently obtaining benefits under the said consent judgment in consolidated suits No. UHC/43/71, UHC/50/71 and UHC/70/71, have refused, declined and/or neglected to perform their legal obligations to plaintiffs in relation to the burdens therein contained.
3. A declaration that the 1st to 3rd defendants did not ever intend to perform their obligations to plaintiffs under the said consent judgment in suit Nos. UHC/43/71, UHC/50/71 and UHC/70/71.
4. A declaration that plaintiffs were induced to subscribe to the consent judgment in suits No. UHC/43/71, UHC/50/71 and UHC/70/71 by defendants misrepresentation/fraud that 1st to 3rd defendants would honour their legal obligations to plaintiffs under the said consent judgment.
5. An order setting aside the said consent judgment in consolidated suits No. UHC/43/71, UHC/50/71 and UHC/70/71 dated 19th day of October, 1972.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants/respondents filed a joint statement of defence while the 4th defendant/respondent filed a separate statement of defence. Pleadings having been filed and exchanged amongst the parties, the 1st 2nd and 3rd respondents who were 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants at the trial court, filed a motion praying the court make the following orders:

(i) Setting down for hearing and determination the points of law raised in paragraph 32(a), (c) and (d) of the defendants/applicants statement of defence filed in the above-mentioned suit No. HCK/13/87 by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants/applicant, namely: –

32(a) Estoppel per rem judicata on the ground that the issues raised in this action and the reliefs therefrom are the same or substantially the same issues which were raised, canvassed and dismissed in suit Nos. HCK/26/76, CA/148/84 and HCK/20/81 –

The present action is therefore surreptitious way of reawakening a settled suit between the same parties on the same facts and before the same court.

(c) Jurisdiction: Since the issues raised in the suit are the same or substantially the same as the issues canvassed in the above-mentioned suits this honourable court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

(d) This action is an abuse of the process of court in view of the reasons given in (c) above.

(ii) Dismissing or striking out the above-mentioned suit No. HCK/13/87 on the grounds set out above.

The said motion was heard by the learned trial Judge and in a ruling delivered on the 30th day of May, 1996 same was dismissed. In dismissing the application, the learned trial Judge held at pages 94 – 96 of the record of appeal as follows:

A close look at the claims will reveal that the substance of the claim in suit No. HCK/26/76 is to set aside the consent judgment on the ground of fraud; the substance judgment (sic) and the setting aside of the consent judgment on the grounds of bad faith, misrepresentation and non-disclosure of material facts; the substance of the claim in this suit No. HCK/13/87 is the consistent violation of the fundamental terms of the consent judgment in the consolidated suits and the setting aside of the consent judgment in the consolidated suits No. UHC/43/71, UHC/50/71 and UHC/70/71 on the ground of breach of the consent judgment It is my humble and respectful view that since the consent judgment is still subsisting, consistent violation of it, further breach of it or new breach of it can ground a new action.

The judgment of this court which dismissed the claim based on unproved fraud in suit No. HCK/26/76 does not make the consent judgment unchallengeable on the rounds of breach or noncompliance or having been overtaken by recent events.

It is my humble and respectful view that since this suit is based on the breach of the consent judgment and/or noncompliance with the consent judgment, the claim in this suit is not the same with the claims in suit No. HCK/26/76 and suit No. HCK/20/81.