LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Estoppel — Res Judicata — Opportunity to Recover — Plaintiff Must Have Had Opportunity to Recover in First Action
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is not only necessary to show that the cause of action was the same but also that the plaintiff has had an opportunity of recovering in the first action that which he seeks to recover in the second action.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Okukuje v. Akwido (2001) NLC-581992(SC) at p. 22; Paras C–D.
"It is not only necessary to show that the cause of action was the same but also that the plaintiff (as in Exhibit C in this case) has had an opportunity of recovering in the first action and but for his own fault that which he seeks to recover in the second action."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
For res judicata to bar a second action, the plaintiff must have had the opportunity to recover in the first action the same relief sought in the second. If the plaintiff could not have recovered the relief in the first action (e.g., because the court lacked jurisdiction or the relief was not then available), res judicata does not apply. The principle ensures that parties are not penalised for failing to claim relief that was not available. The “but for his own fault” requirement means the plaintiff must have been at fault for not claiming the relief. If the omission was due to circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control, the second action may proceed. The rule prevents abuse while protecting legitimate claims.
