UDEZE AND ORS. V CHIDEBE AND ORS

• Pages: 114-129

114



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES

[1990] 1 N.S.C.C.

UDEZE AND ORS. V CHIDEBE AND ORS.

RAPHAEL UDEZE AND ORS



APPELLANT

(for themselves and on behalf of

the members of Ezize Nnadi family of

Ifite Nteje)

V

PAUL CHIDEBE AND ORS.

(For themselves and on

behalf of the people

of Ifite Nteje Quarters)



RESPONDENTS

SUIT No. SC. 123/1988

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

ESO,



J.S.C.

KAWU,



J.S.C.

BELGORE,



J.S.C.

NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.

WALT,



J.S.C.

19th January, 1990

Estoppel - Per rem judicatam - Applicable principles - Estoppel per rein judicatam and

stares decisis - distinction.

Evidence - S. 145 Evidence Act - Presumption of ownership - When raised - Onus of proof

- Adrnissibiliry of evidence.



30

Practice and Procedure - Stare decisis - Operation - Appeal - Concurrent findings by lower

court - Attitude of supreme

Court - Courts - Native tribunal - Proceedings - Interpretation by common Law Court -

35

Misdirection by a court - What amounts to.

Land Law - Declaration of title to land - Claim based on traditional history - Proof of title

to smaller portion than claimed - Effect - Communal land - Claim of exclusive

ownership - Onus on claimant.



40

ISSUES:

1.

How may a plea of

estoppel per rem judicatam

avail a party pleading it in an

action for title to land.

2.

What is the distinction between the doctrine of

stare decisis

and

estoppel per

45

rem judicatam

3.

How can a plea of

estoppel per rem judicatam

in a Land Case be dealt with by

a party and the court.

4.

On whom lies the onus of proof of exclusive possession of communal land.

5.

What may a party claiming entitlement to a declaration of title to land based on 50

evidence of tradition prove.

6.

what is the distinction between occupation and possession of land.

7.

What is the attitude of the supreme court to concurrent finding of facts.

8.

What is the distinction between admissibility of a piece of evidence and its

probative value.

9.

What will amount to a misdirection on the part of the court.

5

10

15

20

25

UDEZE AND ORS. V CHIDEBE AND ORS.



115

FACTS:

The plaintiffs as representative of Azize Nnadi family of Arnansi Village of If ite

Nteje sued the defendant in the High Court claiming exclusive possession of Ude

Nnofia Land, that they had owned it from time immemorial, exercising diverse acts

of ownership and possession over it. They also averred that the defendants use to

farm there on as plaintiffs tenants upon payment of tribute up till 1971 when they

refused to pay any longer.

On the other hand, the defendants averred that the whole land in dispute is a

communal land of the entire Ifite Nteje community which exercised diverse acts of

ownership and possession thereon. They claimed that the plaintiffs are strangers,

and like their fathers, have been allowed to farm the Communal lands of the

defendants. They also pleaded an Onitsha Native Council Suit where the ownership

of the land was awarded them as a

res judicata.

The trial court gave judgment for the defendants upholding the plea of

res judicata

3



and also held that the plaintiff did not adduce evidence as to the root of title of their

ancestor.

The plaintiff dissatisfied appealed to the court of Appeal Enugu division contend-

ing

inter alia

that the learned trial judge was wrong to have upheld the plea of

res

judicata

because although the subject matter of the two suits were the same, the

parties arid their capacities were not the same.

The court of Appeal affirmed the

,

Decision of the trial court and dismissed the

plaintiff/appellants appeal.

The plaintiff still dissatisfied appealed to the supreme court contending

inter alia

that the learned trial judge was wrong to have upheld the plea of

res judicata.

5



HELD:

1 That for the doctrine of

estoppel per rem judicatam

to apply the decision must

be one made in a previous suit before a court of competent jurisdiction involving

an issue of fact or of law on the same subject matter, which is put again in issue

in the instant case between the same parties or their privies. Such a decision may

consist of an express judicial declaration, in which case no difficulty in raising a

plea of

estoppel per rem judicatory

arises. At other times, however, it may be a

case of inferential judicial determination of dispute questions of law or of fact,

deducible from the judgment, as in the present case where the judgement relied

upon is a native court decision.

In the instant case, the successful assertion of communal title in lfite Nteje in that

previous suit is an important act of possession which the parties thereto can now

take advantage of along with other

.

facts established in evidence.

2.

The distinction between the doctrine of

stare decisis

and

estoppel per rem

judicatam

is that whereas the former is not concerned with determination of

issues between parties as such but with a declaration of law that will ever remain

binding on all persons, whether pariies to the proceedings or not, and courts of

co-ordinate or inferior jurisdiction in the judicial hierachy.

Estoppel per rem judicatam

can onl

y

arise and bind parties to the suit who want

to relitigate the issue or cause of action on the same subject and in the same right

and capacity as in the previous suit.

3.

A plea of

estoppel per rem judicatam

in a land case can be dealt with by the party

and the court in one of two ways where the decision in the previous suit is clear

and self sufficient, then it is usually taken up

in Limine,

often as the only issue. In

that case, the success of the party's case usually depends entirely on the success

of the plea. But where, as in this case the previous suit being relied upon for the

plea is a decision of a native tribunal in which there was no plan or pleadings, the

court first hears the whole evidence before it can reach its decision on the

rightness, or otherwise, of the plea.

4.

That where an individual or a group asserts exclusive ownership as against a

community's claim to communal ownership, the onus is on the appellants as

against the respondents who assert communal ownership.