NGWO ORS. V. MONYE AND ORS

• Pages: 70-78

70



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1970] N.S.C.C.

NGWO ORS. V. MONYE AND ORS.

5

OKONJI NGWO AND ORS

V

RAPHAEL MONYE AND ORS

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

UDOMA,



J.S.C.

20th March, 1970

APPELLANTS

RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 235/1967

10

15

Land Law - Declaration - Title to land - Supreme Court in earlier judgment

(1964) judgment not shown and so unaware of nulification of "1931 judgment"

- Decision impugned on the ground that it had been arrived at by court



20

only because court had acted in ignorance of concealment of an authority

binding on the court - Decision given per incuriam - Court not bound to

apply principle of stare decisis.

ISSUE:



25

1. Can the principle of

stare decisis

be applied to a case, where the decision

relied on, has been overruled in a subsequent case, without the knoiwedge of

the court?

FACTS:

The plaintiffs had asked for a declaration that in accordance with the terms of



30

a settlement between them and the defendant in 1936, they are entitled to exclu-

sive possession of certain lands and for an injunction to restrain the defendants

from interfering with their rights. There had been prolonged litigation between the

parties and an attempt at settlement had been made. An action was instituted in

1957, when the plaintiff claimed a declaration of title, trespass and an injunction.



35

Judgment was Given in August 1962. The appellants appealed to the Supreme

Court and in 1964 the appeal was allowed. The plaintiffs in that action are the pres-

ent plaintiffs. The defendants at the trial contended that the present action is

res

judicata.

Judgment was given for the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed.

HELD:



40

1.

It was clear that in arriving at its decision, the Supreme Court in Exhibit P3 had

taken the view that the 1931 judgment still subsisted and that it constituted

res

judicata

as between the parties and therefore binding on the Supreme Court

and that it operated against the claims of the present plaintiffs who had got

judgment in the High Court by virtue of Exhibit D.



45

2.

The question that arose was whether the judgment of the Supreme Court Exhibit

P3 could be regarded as

res judicata

so as to estop the present plaintiffs from

re-litigating their rights as to the land in issue.

3.

Where a decision is impugned on the grounds that it has been arrived at by the

court only because the court had acted in ignorance or concealment of an



50

authority, statutory or otherwise, which is binding on the court, the decision is

said to have been given

per incuriam

and constitutes a special case where the

court is not bound to apply the principle of

stare decisis.