Estoppel (72)
HELD:
"This Court in ABIOLA & SONS BOTTLING CO. LTD V. 7UP BOTTLING CO. LTD & ORS (2012) LPELR-9279 (SC) held as follows on the doctrine of res judicata;
HELD:
"The issue here really boils down to whether the issue estoppels raised and invoked against the Appellants by the learned trial Judge to the effect that they are privies of the 5th Respondent in the two judgments upon which this Amended Originating Summons is predicated can be sustained.
HELD:
"Grounds 1, 2, & 3 complain about the findings that the suit of the Appellant was caught by the principle of estoppel per rem judicatum.
HELD:
"The Appellants have argued albeit in error that the issue of estoppel rem judicata was not raised by any of the Respondents at the trial Court and no leave was obtained from the Court below to raise same as a fresh point of law to which end, the decision of their lordships should be set aside.
HELD:
"The word 'privy' has also been defined to include all those who are privy to the parties on record in blood, tittle or interest and estoppel per rem-judicatam operates against all of them.
HELD:
"On the constitutive ingredients for the application of the plea of res judicata, this Court in ODUTOLA V. ODERINDE & ORS. (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt. 888) 574, (2004) LPELR - 2258(SC) Per KUTIGI, J.S.C at P.10, held thus:
