Res Judicata (54)
"It is now firmly settled in a long line of decided authorities, that where a court of competent jurisdiction has settled, by a final decision the matters in dispute between the parties, none of the parties or his privy/privies may re-litigate that issue again by bringing a fresh action. The matter is said to be res judicata. The estoppel created is said to be by record inter parties." Per OGBUAGU, J.S.C. (P. 65, paras. D-F) ALHAJI MADI MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR V.BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & ORS(2007) LPELR-55(SC)
"The expression, 'res judicata' means 'a thing adjudicated'. It came out from the original expression, res adjudicata. The aim of the principle is to put to an end, a matter that was previously litigated by a competent court of law. It is to avoid duplicity or multiplicity of litigation. The principle is designed to save so much litigation time. The essence of the principle is that a previous judgment or a judgment previously handed down will constitute a bar to a present action if certain conditions are satisfied."Per TOBI, J.S.C. (Pp. 54-55, paras. F-A) ALHAJI MADI MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR V.BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & ORS(2007) LPELR-55(SC)
"If the previous matter was heard and decided by a court of incompetent jurisdiction, the principle or doctrine of res judicata will not apply, because the decision is null and void ab initio. A decision, which is a nullity, will not, in law, give rise to the principle or doctrine of res judicata." Per TOBI, J.S.C. (P.55, paras. F-G) ALHAJI MADI MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR V.BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & ORS(2007) LPELR-55(SC)
"Once it is found that the question in litigation, is caught by estoppel per res judicata, there the matter lies. It is a rule of public policy based on the maxim: "interest republicae ut sit .finis litium", - it is in the public interest. that a litigation, shall come to an end or there must in the public interest, be an end to litigation." Per OGBUAGU, J.S.C. (Pp. 66-67, paras. G-B) ALHAJI MADI MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR V.BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & ORS(2007) LPELR-55(SC)
"Before the doctrine or plea can operate or be sustained, it must be shown that the parties, issues and subject matter were the same in the previous action as those in the action in which the plea is raised. This is why the defence of res judicata cannot succeed, unless these three ingredients are present or proved or established." Per OGBUAGU, J.S.C. (P.67, paras. F-G) ALHAJI MADI MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR V.BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & ORS(2007) LPELR-55(SC)
"The rule of estoppel per res judicatam, requires that where a final decision is given by a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties thereto, cannot be heard to contradict that decision in any subsequent litigation between them respecting the same subject-matter. As a plea, the decision operates as a bar to a subsequent litigation and as evidence,it is conclusive between the parties to it." Per OGBUAGU, J.S.C. (Pp. 65-66, paras. F-A) ALHAJI MADI MOHAMMED ABUBAKAR V.BEBEJI OIL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD & ORS(2007) LPELR-55(SC)
"...in what circumstance can a plea of Res judicata be raised? Estoppel per rem judicatam otherwise known as estoppel by record arises where an issue of fact has been judicially determined in a final manner between the parties by a court or a tribunal having jurisdiction, concurrent or exclusive in the matter and the same issue comes directly in question in subsequent proceedings between the parties or their privies.
"By "res judicata" it means "a thing adjudicated". In other words, it means "an issue that has been definitively settled by judicial decision". The three essential elements of this doctrine therefore are: - (1) an earlier decisions on the issue, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) the involvement of the same parties or parties in privy with the original parties.
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