Whether the Principle of Res Judicata Is available as a Shield or as a Sword

CASE TITLE: OCHIGBO v. AMEH (2023) LPELR-59616(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 30TH JANUARY, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: LAND LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: BIOBELE ABRAHAM GEORGEWILL, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Trespass to Land.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Benue State, Coram: D.E. Igoh J, in Suit No. OKP/HC/9/2013 delivered on 15/10/2014.

The Respondent as Claimant filed an action against the Appellant at the trial Court claiming: “the sum of N2,500,000.00 only being General Damages for the Defendant’s Trespass to the Plaintiff’s farmland lying and situate at Ogene Okpoga and for the unwarranted and aggravated disturbance of the Plaintiff’s peaceful enjoyment and use of the said farmland.”

According to the Respondent, the subject matter of this appeal, which is the same with the subject matter in Suits No. 225/81, UAC/CV/195/88 and OKP/CV/112/90, consists of a disputed piece of farmland situate at Ogene belonged to the Respondent’s family and was the subject matter of an earlier successful litigation between one Mr. Ameh Ochayi of Okpoga (now late) and one Mr. Ochigbo Ajogwu of Idiri (also now late) at the Grade 1 Area Court, Okpoga and Upper Area Court, Okpoga respectively and that judgments were duly entered by the Courts in which the respective parents of the parties in this appeal were the parties, and that judgment in Suit No. 225/81 of the Grade 1 Area Court, Okpoga was delivered on 6/8/1981, while the judgment in Suit No. UAC/OKP/CV/195/88 was delivered on 10/3/1989, and the judgment in Suit No. UAC/OKP/CV/112/90 was delivered on 10/9/1990.

However, according to the Appellant, although both Idiri and Ogene Communities share common boundary in Okpoga and whilst the Appellant hails from Idiri and the Respondent hails from Ogene, the land in dispute is located within the Idiri Community in Okpoga village and not in Ogene community in Okpoga village. Consequently, the portion of land in this appeal is distinct, separate and not the same portion of land as alleged by the Respondent to have been earlier litigated upon at the Area Court and Upper Area Courts in Suit Nos: 225/81, UAC/OKP/CV/195/88 and UAC/OKP/112/90. The Appellant also challenged the competence of the Respondent’s Suit.

At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial judge entered judgment in favour of the Respondent and awarded the sum of N50,000.00 as general damages for trespass to land against the Appellant in favour of the Respondent. Dissatisfied, the Appellant lodged an appeal at the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The appeal was determined on the following issues thus:

“1. Whether from the facts of the instant case, the lower Court erred when it assumed jurisdiction and adjudicated upon this case after having found that the party who instituted Suits No. 225/81 at the Area Court Grade 1, Okpoga as Plaintiff and sued as Defendant in Suit No. UAC/CV/195/88 at the Upper Area Court, Okpoga was late Mr. Ameh Ochayi and not Chief Vincent Ameh, the Respondent herein who instituted the instant Suit No.OKP/HC/9/2013 without requisite capacity to sue and without any endorsement of his capacity to sue (if any) on the Writ of Summons?

2. Whether having regards to the state of pleadings and evidence the lower Court was not in error when it admitted in evidence Exhibits A and B, being the previous judgments in Suits No. 225/81 and UAC/OKP/CV/195/88 and invoked the principle of Estoppel Per rem Judicata whereas the subject matter issues and parties in Exhibits A and B are not the same as in the instant case?

3. Whether the failure of the lower Court to consider and admit Exhibits D1 – 4 in evidence and or evaluate the Appellant’s averments and evidence amounted to a denial of fair hearing and miscarriage of justice?”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed for lacking in merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial High Court was affirmed.

RATIOS:

• EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA: Doctrine of res judicata; distinction between cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel
• EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA: Conditions for a successful plea of estoppel per rem judicatam
• EVIDENCE – ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM/RES JUDICATA: Meaning of privy (ies)
• LAND LAW – TRESPASS TO LAND: Whether a claim for trespass is dependent on proof of title
• ACTION – LOCUS STANDI: Meaning of locus standi; What a party must show to establish locus standi
• EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE: What determines the issue of admissibility of evidence; can objection be raised to the admissibility of evidence on appeal