Ex Captain Charles Ekeagwu V. The Nigerian Army & Anor. (2006)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

RHODES-VIVOUR, J.C.A.

The appellant as plaintiff sued the respondents as defendants in the Federal High Court, Abuja claiming the following reliefs:

(1) A declaration that the compulsory retirement of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant through a letter (ref. NA/278/1/A) dated 18/6/01 is illegal, null and void, as it was based on a criterium that never existed.

(2) An order reinstating the plaintiff as a Captain of the Nigerian Army and directing an accelerated promotion of the plaintiff to the rank of a full Colonel or any other rank that he would have attained if the 1st defendant had not stagnated his growth in the Nigerian Army.

Alternatively:

N130,000,000.00 (One hundred and thirty million Naira) being general damages against the defendants for loss of expectation in the plaintiff’s chosen career as a result of the illegal action of the defendants, and for the trauma and psychological torture suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the illegal action of the defendants.

(3) N10,000,000:00 (Ten million Naira) being cost of all legal services and actions taken by the plaintiff from 1990 till date.”

Pleadings passed through the parties. The case proceeded to trial at the end of which the learned trial Judge, the Hon. Justice S. J. Adah upheld the plea of estoppel per rem Judicatam. The concluding part of the judgment reads as follows:

“… This no doubt has effectively precluded this plaintiff from vexing the defendants twice on the same issue. I hold therefore that the plea of res judicata set up by the defendants succeeds. The action is therefore dismissed.”

This judgment did not go down well with the appellant and so he appealed to this court. On 15/3/05 we granted the appellant leave to file an amended notice of appeal and amended appellant’s brief of argument. They were both filed on 16/3/05.

The appellant filed five grounds of appeal. They are reproduced without their particulars.

“Ground 1

The learned trial court erred in law by failing to distinguish the difference between the material issue before him – compulsory retirement and the other dissimilar issues of dismissal canvassed in the earlier suit No. FHC/L/CS/492/98 and thereby ran into wrong conclusion that one acted as estoppel against the other.

Ground 2