S.O. Ntuks & Ors V Nigerian Ports Authority (2007)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

I. F. OGBUAGU, J.S.C

This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, (hereinafter called “the court below”), delivered on 9th January, 2003, allowing the appeal of the respondent and setting aside the ruling of Akinsanya, J. of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Lagos delivered on 7th December, 2001 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent on the ground of estoppel per rem judicatam and remitting the matter to the High Court of Lagos for trial by another Judge.

Dissatisfied with the said decision the defendants/appellants, have appealed to this court on four (4) grounds of appeal which without their particulars, read as follows ”

1). The learned Justices of the Court of Appeal, erred in law when they held that the that subject matter in both suits are not the same.

2) The court below misdirected itself in law when it held that the respondent were Right to have commenced the process of setting aside the judgment in suit No. LD/1827/92 by way of substantive action in suit No. LD/1021/99.

3). The learned Justices of the court below erred in law then (sic)(meaning when) they adopted the Issues as formulated by the respondents, but failed to address the issue raised therein

4). The learned Justices of the court below erred in law when they held that the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam did not apply to the suit”

The facts of the case leading to the instant appeal briefly stated, are that sometimes in 1992, the appellants sued the respondent at the Lagos High court, in sitting in Lagos in suit No LD/1827/92 and in their amended statement of claim,-claimed the following reliefs:

“1. A declaration that all the staff particularly those plaintiffs who put in a service period of between 5 to 91/2 years with the defendant corporation are entitled to gratuity

2. A declaration that those plaintiffs who have served the defendant for a period of 10 to 141/2 years qualify for pension and redundancy benefits under the Pensions Act (sic)1990 as amended by circular ref No. B63216/S1/X/6I8 of 13th September, 1991 and the plaintiff’s condition of service.
3. A declaration that each of the staff is entitled to productivity bonus which was approved when the plaintiffs were in service.
4. A declaration that each of the staff are entitled to 28 loads as contained in their Condition of serviced
5. An order compelling the defendants to comply with the circular”

In his judgment delivered on 12th July 1996, Sahid, J., noted that the plaintiffs are ten (10) in number and at page 19 of the record the following appeared inter alia

“In the result only the 1st and the 2nd reliefs claimed succeed. The 3rd and 4th are dismissed.

Accordingly it is hereby declared:

1. That all the plaintiffs and the persons they represent who served the defendant Up to 5 years but not less than 10 years are entitled to gratuity

2 That all those plaintiffs and the persons they represent who served the defendant For a period of 10 years and above are entitled to pension and redundancy benefits Under the pensions act 1990 as amended by circular ref No B63216/SI/X/618 of 13th September 1991 and the plaintiff’s condition of service.”

And it is hereby ordered that the defendant do comply with the Federal Government Circular ref No. B63216/SI/X/618 of 13th September 1991 in accordance with the foregoing declaratory judgment.”