Olanrewaju Asamu V. Ismaila Lawanson & Ors (2014)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

OBIETONBARA DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is over the Ruling of the High Court of Oyo State in Suit No.I/621/2010 delivered on 20/3/13 wherein the court found that the issues raised by the appellant who was the plaintiff in the land matter in that court was caught by the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam.

Dissatisfied with the Ruling, the appellant by a Notice of Appeal filed on 25/1/13 gave vent to his dissatisfaction on the following three grounds:

Ground One

The learned trial judge erred in law in holding that the land which is the subject matter of the present suit is a part of the land which was the subject matter of Suit No.I/317/91 which culminated in Appeal No.SC/72/2004 and that the 2nd and 3rd respondents have been able to show that the parties are privies of the parties in Suit No.SC./72/2004.

Particulars

i. The judgment of the Supreme Court in SC.72/2004 which was relied upon by the 1st and 2nd respondents as constituting res judicata was never put in evidence before the lower court.

ii. The respondents were not able to establish that the appellant or any of his predecessors-in-title was a privy of any of the parties to SC./72/2004.

iii. The record of proceedings of the case that culminated in SC./72/2004 were not tendered before the lower court.

iv. The plans which the lower court relied upon to arrive at its decision were not put in evidence and identified in the manner required by the law.

v. The learned trial judge did not state how the respondents established that the appellant in this case is a party or privy of any of the parties to SC./72/2004.

vi. In the premises of the foregoing, the ingredients for establishing estoppel per rem judicatam were not proved.

Ground Two

The learned judge of the lower court erred in law by failing to avert his mind to the legal contention of the appellant before the lower court that a prior purchaser of land cannot be estopped as being privy in estate by a judgment obtained against him or his predecessor-in-title after the purchase of the land.