UKAEGBU V. UGORJI
| Pages | 298-330 |
298
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
[1991] 2 N.S.C.C.
UKAEGBU V. UGORJI
1.
SYLVESTER EZEKPELECHI
)
UKAEGBU
)
2.
UDEGBU ODIOGU
)
(For themselves and behalf of )
Okpoko Akpulu people
)
3.
RAPHAEL OFOR
)
4.
MICHAEL ANYAKEI
)
APPELLANTS
5.
MICHAEL ONWUKA
)
6.
EZEAMUZIE EGEMBA
)
7.
GABRIEL EZEGBUGHA
)
8.
JAMES OKALA
)
9.
UMEARUEKWE EZEAKUNNE )
(For themselves and on
)
behalf of Ubaha Akpulu people) )
V.
1.
DURUONONANWA UGORJI
2.
NDUCHEKWE OGBUKARA
RESPONDENTS
(For themselves and on
behalf of Mbaeru Isieke
village of Akpulu).
APPEAL NO. S.C. 226/1988.
SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA
UWAIS,
J.S.C.
KARIBI-WHYTE,
J.S.C.
NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.
A KPATA ,
J.S.C.
BABALAKIN.
J.S.C.
18th July, 1991.
Estoppel - Res judicata - Applicability and scope of
Legislation - Evidence Act, section 54 - Intendment of
Practice and Procedure - Pleadings - Functions and principles of - Res judicata - Plea of
same by plaintiff in his statement of claim - Whether proper - Plea of estoppel and plea
of res judicata - Effect and difference between.
ISSUES:
1.
Whether a plaintiff can plead a previous judgment as res judicata in a statement
of claim.
2.
What is the difference where a party pleads a previous judgment as estoppel
and as res judicata?
1
'
1.
21
2.
3
3
4
4
UKAEGBU V. UGORJI
299
FACTS:
In their writ of summons issued in the High court the plaintiffs claimed, against
the defendants a declaration of title, damages for trespass and a perpetual
5 injunction in respect of "all that piece or parcel of land lying, being and situate at
Isieke village, Akpulu."
Pleadings were filed by the parties and issues were also joined. They also gave
oral evidence in support of the pleadings. In his considered judgment, the learned
trial judge made findings of fact to the effect that the land in dispute in the instant
10
case was the same as the land in dispute in the 1928 case which was in favour of
the plaintiffs. He also made a finding that the land occupied by the 3rd and 4th
defendants was outside the land in dispute while the portions occupied by the
other defendants were within the disputed land. The learned trial judge then
granted the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants but dismissed their case
15 against the 3rd and 4th defendants.
The 1st, 2nd, 5th - 9th defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal against the
trial court's judgment given against them, while the plaintiffs' cross-appealed
against the part of the trial court's judgment dismissing their claim against the 3rd
and 4th defendants.
20
After considering the grounds of the appeal and the issues arising therefrom,
the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that the defendants' appeal was devoid
of merit, and also that the cross-appeal of the plaintiffs was bound to fail. Both
appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Still dissatisfied, the defendants, excluding the 3rd and 4th defendants, further
25 appealed to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal's decision. Issues set
down for determination in their brief were, inter alia, whether a previous judgment
pleaded by the plaintiff in his statement of claim could sustain a plea of res judicata
in favour of such plaintiff, and whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held
that it is a mere irregularity to raise a plea.of res judicata in the Statement of Claim?
30
The plaintiffs also appealed to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the
Court of Appeal dismissing their cross-appeal to it.
HELD:
1.
A plaintiff cannot successfully plead res judicata in a statement of claim. The
35
simple reason is that if indeed a plaintiff has got a firm judgment which pleading
of res judicata connotes he does not need to go to court to get another
judgment again. He should retain that judgment and use it as a shield if any
party to that judgment sues him on the same piece or parcel of land or a subject
matter to which that judgment relates.
(See p.309 lines 9 - 15 & p. 308, lines
40
10 - 13).
In the instant case however, looking through the pleadings of the
plaintiffs/respondents at paragraph 7 of their Statement of Claim (Exhibit C)
and the use to which the learned trial judge put the Exhibit C and obseving the
effects of the pleading in law, it would seem that what the plaintiffs/respondents
45
pleaded in the case was estoppel and not
res judicata.
The trial court and the
Court of Appeal were thus
in
error of saying that what was pleaded was
res
judicata.
2.
When a party pleads a judgment as estoppel what he is telling the court is that
the court should take that judgment into consideration in considering the
totality of his present case before the court. Whereas when he pleads
res
judicata
he is saying that although he has already got judgment on this piece
or parcel of land he wants the court to adjudicate on the matter that has already
50
300
NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES [1991] 2 N.S.C.C.
been adjudicated upon in his favour. This is contradiction in terms. Hence
res
judicata
ousts the jurisdiction of the court. (See
p.307 lines 31 -
38).
3
A plea of
res judicata
will arise where the plaintiff who is pleading the previous
judgment was the plaintiff in the said previous judgment or his privy in title were
plaintiffs in the previous judgment relied upon. On the other hand, the pleading
5
will be estoppel where the plaintiff or his privy in title was defendant in the case
pleaded as estoppel.
(See p.307 lines 41 -
45).
Per
KARIBI-WHYTE, J.S.C.
4. The main function of pleadings in litigation made up of the statement of claim
of the plaintiff and the statement of defence of the defendant is to enable the
parties ascertain as much as possible the various matters actually in dispute
and in which there is agreement. The rules relating to sufficiency, accuracy,
comprehensiveness and freedom from ambiguity formulated to control
pleadings during trial of an action are designed to ensure, inter alia, the
following important goals:-
(i)
to ascertain to both parties the issues between them and to enable each
other prepare to meet the issue.
(ii)
it enables the court to determine the scope and limits of the issues to be
tried and to determine the nature and mode of the trial.
(iii)
it eliminates the element of surprise.
(iv)
it limits the scope of the evidence that can be adduced during the trial.
(See p.318 lines 9 - 21).
5. Parties are bound strictly by, and are not allowed to depart from their pleadings.
Hence parties can only lead evidence in support of their pleadings. Evidence
led which is not supported by the pleadings go to no issue. Such evidence if
inadvertently admitted will be expunged. Although pleadings must contain
facts and not law, points of law can be raised in pleadings. A party relying on
estoppel must specially plead it.
(See p.318 lines 22 - 28).
6. It is clear from section 54(1) of the evidence Act that in any litigation where a
previous judgment between the same parties or their privies constitutes a fact
in issue, as in the instant case, such judgment is a relevant fact which could
be pleaded as (i)
res judicata
or (ii) a relevant fact. (See
p.320 lines 9 - 12).
7. An estoppel which includes
per rem judicatam
can be raised to show the
awareness of the plaintiff of a previous litigation between the parties which he
intends to rely upon, thus preparing his ground for a reply in the event of the
statement of defence seeking to rely. on the same estoppel.
(See p.321 lines
11 - 14).
4
8. Issues settled must correspond with the pleadings of the pleadings of the
parties. Any material or substantial departure from the pleadings of the parties,
will result in the undesirable and unacceptable situation of the court making a
case for the parties. (See p.321 lines 35 - 39).
4
Per
NNAEMEKA-AGU, J.S.C.
9. It is within the contemplation of section 54 of the Evidence Act that where in a
previous judgment between the same parties or their privies a matter which
has been, or could have been decided in the action is the issue in an instant
suit, that previous suit could be pleaded as:-
G
(i)
res judicata;
1(
1;
2(
2.!
31
3
To continue reading
Request your trial