CASE TITLE: ISA & ORS v. MUHAMMADU (2023) LPELR-61094(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: AUGUST 25, 2023
PRACTICE AREA: EVIDENCE (ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA)
LEAD JUDGMENT: PETER OYINKENIMIEMI AFFEN, J.C.A
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on Res Judicata.
This appeal is an offshoot of Suit No. ADSY/125/2017: Hamza Alhaji Muhammadu v Idrisa Shehu Isa & 5 Ors, which entailed a main claim by the Respondent (plaintiff) and a counterclaim by the Appellants (defendants).
The res is an expanse of land situate along Mamokan Dirdeu Road at Jirandi in Jada Local Government Area of Adamawa State, to which the parties laid rival claims of ownership. The parties adduced testimonial and documentary evidence, and the lower Court visited the locus in quo after the close of evidence.
The writ of summons and accompanying statement of claim were subsequently amended with the leave of the trial Court, which ultimately allowed the main claim and dismissed the counterclaim in a reserved judgment delivered on 31/3/22,
Dissatisfied by the judgment, this appeal was filed.
ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The appeal was determined on the following issues:
“(i) Whether the amended writ of summons and statement of claim upon which the lower Court relied in entering the judgment appealed against are valid/competent such that the Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate was not impaired.
(ii) Whether the lower Court was right in holding that in light of the 1992 judgment of the same Upper Area Court Ganye in Suit No. CV/APP/30/91 (Exhibit B), the 2003 judgment of the Upper Area Court Ganye in Suit No. CVFI/118/2003: Mallam Barkindo & 2 Ors v. Mallam Abdulkarim & 6 Ors (Exhibit S1) constitutes an abuse of Court process and did not operate as res judicata against Suit No. ADSY/125/2017: Hamza Alh. Muhammadu v. Idrisa Shehu Isa & 5 Ors from which the instant appeal stems.”
DECISION/HELD:
On the whole, the appeal was allowed.
RATIOS:
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – AMENDMENT OF COURT PROCESSES/PLEADINGS – Effect of amendment of pleadings or processes and when same takes effect
• EVIDENCE – VISIT TO THE LOCUS IN QUO – Position of the law on evidential matters in visit to locus in quo
• EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA – Principles of estoppel per rem judicatam
• EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA – Whether a plaintiff can plead res judicata in his statement of claim
• EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA – How and when to raise the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam
• EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA – Conditions for a successful plea of estoppel per rem judicatam
• EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA – Whether the principle of res judicata is available as a shield or as a sword
• EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL – Distinction between estoppel and plea of res judicata
• EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA – Test for determining whether a previous case and the present case are the same in a plea of res judicata
• EVIDENCE – CROSS-EXAMINATION – Effect of failure to cross-examine a witness on material point
• COURT – AREA COURT – Nature of proceedings in Area Courts; whether Area Courts are bound by the law of evidence
• COURT – DUTY OF COURT – Duty of an Appeal Court to consider all issues for determination raised before it; exceptions thereto
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
