Res Judicata

Again, I think it would be correct to say here that where the principle of Res judicata has been pleaded in a case that its full effect is to oust the jurisdiction of the court to hear the present matter before it as it is predicated on issue(s) or subject matter that has been adjudicated upon previously. In such cases it is permissible where the cases of parties are as clear as here that the issue of Res judicata ought to be disposed of first as it would save valuable time of the court as it touches on the jurisdiction of the court. And this is moreso where it disposes of the entire matter and even as here, the appeal completely.

JIMOH & ORS. V. AKANDE & ANOR LGC(20/1/2009) H

where the principle of Res judicata applies to conclude the plaintiffs case that it would serve no useful purpose for the plaintiff to continue to lead further evidence in the case. It is not an uncommon practice in that instance for the Defendant relying on the principle of Res judicata to move the Court to have the Plaintiffs claim dismissed peremptorily on the ground of Res judicata even without the court having to hear oral evidence at all from the Defendants.

JIMOH & ORS. V. AKANDE & ANOR LGC(20/1/2009) H

The principle of estoppel per rem judicata, the appeal agitates, postulates that if the merit of an action between the parties have been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction and a final decision given thereon, no person shall, in a subsequent litigation, be allowed to raise the very same questions that have earlier been decided. The doctrine insists on putting an end to litigation by estopping any party to the dispute or their privies to relitigate the matter which has been finally and judicially determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. See YOYE V.
OLUBODE (1974) 10 SC 209 and ALFRED ASAGBA & ANOR V. ONOWHA OGAJE & ANOR (1972) LPELR- 571 (SC). In the latter case this Court per Sowemimo, JSC (of blessed memory), cited with approval the decision of Fatayi-Williams J (as he then was) in FABUNMI FAMILY V. DELEGAN AND OTHERS (1965) N.M.L.R. 369 where at page 373 of the report his lordship set out the preconditions a Court applies in determining the success or otherwise of the plea of res judicata and the consequence of a successful plea of the defence thus:- “The issue before the Grades B and A Customary Courts, to my mind, was one of law.
It was whether the plea of estoppel based on the judgments in Exhibits C and E could be sustained or not, the factual evidence of ownership as given by both parties notwithstanding. It is therefore immaterial whether the plaintiffs/applicants called their boundary man to give evidence or whether the defendants/respondents did not call such evidence. In my view, the Grade B Customary Court was quite right in finding for the defendants/respondents on the issue of estoppel and consequently dismissing the plaintiffs/appellants’ claim.
So also is the learned President of the Grade A Customary Court”. MUSA DAITIJO MUHAMMAD, J.S.C