LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Estoppel – Incidental or Collateral Findings Cannot Sustain Res Judicata or Issue Estoppel
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Incidental or collateral findings, not raised by the parties on the pleadings or canvassed at trial, cannot sustain res judicata or issue estoppel.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Iguh, JSC, in Ikoku v. Ekeukwu (1995) NLC-2111989(SC) at pp. 19–20; Paras C–B.
"The principle is well established that it is not each and every observation or remark made by the court that qualifies as a decision or determination of the court… the observation of the learned trial Judge in Exhibit H on the issue of ownership of the land north and south of the land in dispute in that case was clearly incidental, inconclusive and incapable of sustaining a plea of estoppel per rem judicata or issue estoppel as it concerned an issue neither raised by the parties on the pleadings nor canvassed at the trial."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Not every judicial remark creates estoppel. Only findings necessary to the decision, on issues raised by the parties, are binding. Incidental or collateral observations are obiter dicta. The principle prevents estoppel from being based on extraneous comments. The court will examine whether the issue was actually litigated. The rule applies to both res judicata and issue estoppel. The party asserting estoppel must show that the finding was essential. The court will not give estoppel effect to casual remarks. The principle protects parties from being bound by unintended determinations.