SUPREME COURT & COURT OF APPEAL DECISIONS (13665)
Children categories
Privies in estate always include the vendor, purchaser, lessor and lessee.
[Po 162] Para. A
"In this instant case, the 1st Respondent being an innocent purchaser of the landed property in question cannot be regarded as a stranger or new party and as such his inclusion would not prevent the application of the defence of Res Judicata. See Coker v. Sanyaolu (1976) NSCC 566, 575. With regard to the third Respondent, his inclusion in the suit was because he is a nominal or statutory party who conducted or supervised the attachment and sale of the landed property. Similarly, his inclusion in the suit could not be regarded as fatal to the defence of res judicata in the suit too. "
Cole v. Jibunoh & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I)-Per Sanusi, JSC. [Po 162] Paras. A-C
The doctrine of res judicata is a fundamental and important doctrine aimed at bringing an end to litigation. Even public policy demands that once a court of competent jurisdiction has settled by final decision, the matters in contention between parties, they should not bather the courts again with relitigation. There should always be end to litigation, therefore, courts should not encourage prolongation of disputes or proliferation of litigation. Once an action is brought and the merits of the questions are determined between the parties and a final judgment is delivered, such parties should not be allowed to raise or canvass in afresh suit, the same issues 'on the same subject matter.
Cole v. Jibunoh & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I) [Po 162] Paras. C-F
For the defence of res judicata to be successfully raised, the following conditions must co-exist or be met, namely:
- That the parties in the previous action and the present one must be the same. '
- That the subject matter of litigation in the previous action must be the same as the one in the present or new action.
- The claim in the previous action must be the same as the one in the present action.
- The judgment in the previous case must be given by a court of competent jurisdiction; and
By virtue of the joint provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Sheriffand Civil Process Law, Cap 123, Laws of the Northern Nigeria, the only statutory provision upon which one can challenge or set aside a sale under an order of Writ of Attachment is by virtue of Section 47 of the Law. Bank of the North Ltd. v. Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industry Ltd. And 3 Ors. (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 263, G C. Akunonu v. Bekaert Oversees and 2 Ors. (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 393) p. 42 at 66.
[Po 146] Paras. A-C
An order of judgment obtained to attach and sell immovable property is a judgment in rem and since it is an insolvency pronouncement, it takes away absolutely from the judgment debtor, her legal character over the property which has been attached and sold. Adesina Oke v. ShittuAtoloye and Ors. (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 15) 241.
Cole v. Jibunoh & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I) [Po 142] Paras. G-B
A court of co-ordinate jurisdiction has no constitutional power to sit as an appellate Court in another case and review and/or adjudicate on a decision or order made by another Court of the same hierarchy. Chief Gani v. A. G Lagos State No. 1 (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt. 112) 707 at 774.
Cole v. Jibunoh & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I) [Po 141] Paras. B-C
Where a court of competent jurisdiction has finally settled a matter in dispute between parties, neither party or privy may relitigate that issue as under the guise of bringing afresh action, since the matter is said to be res judicata.
Cole v. Jibunoh & Ors. [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I) [Pp. 140-141] Para. G
The aim of preliminary objection is invariably to terminate the lifetime of the appeal/suit in limine. Uwazurike v. A. G Federation (2007) ALL FWLR 514; BASF (Nig.) Ltd. v. Faith (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 518) 840).
CHIEF B.A. ALLANAH & 2 ors vs MR. KANAYO KPOLOKWU& 2 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I) [Po 105] Para. C
Where there is failure to file an appeal within the period stipulated by the rules of court, Act C}r Constitution without obtaining an extension of time within which to appeal or to comply with the statutory requirements of the law which is also a condition precedent to the filing of a valid appeal constitutes an incurable defect which deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. To put it in another way, where an appeal against an interlocutory decision filed outside the stipulated time, without the leave of court, or extension of time given, the appeal will be struck out for being incompetent. Garuba v. KlC Ltd. (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 917)160; Akanbi v. Salawa (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) 637.
[Po 104] Paras. A-D
Failure to seek and obtain leave in respect of a ground of appeal of mixed law and facts renders such ground incompetent. Where it is the only ground of appeal, the entire appeal is rendered incompetent. Section 233, 1999 Constitution.
CHIEF B.A. ALLANAH & 2 ors vs MR. KANAYO KPOLOKWU& 2 ors [2016] 1 M. J. S. C (Pt. I) [Po 101] Paras. E-G