EVIDENCE LAW — Estoppel — Per Rem Judicatam — Decision of Tribunal of Inquiry — Not a Decision of a Court of Law
Ratio Decidendi
Per Mukhtar, JSC, in Balogun & Ors v. Ode & Ors (2007) NLC-123-107-1999(SC) at p. 16; Paras A–C:
"The decision relied upon in the instant case is that of a Tribunal of Enquiry and not a court of competent jurisdiction. The respondents herein did not in the circumstance satisfy the above conditions. Moreover they did not even exhibit the said decision to the affidavit in support for the court to see and determine its nature, as is incumbent on it, and without it, it is as good as assuming that there was in fact no decision available to avail the respondents of the defence raised."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a decision of a Tribunal of Inquiry does not qualify as a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of estoppel per rem judicatam. Tribunals of Inquiry are fact-finding bodies, not judicial courts. Their decisions do not create issue estoppel. Additionally, the party relying on estoppel must produce the decision for the court to examine. Failure to exhibit the decision means the court cannot determine its nature. The principle ensures that only judicial decisions with binding effect can support estoppel. It applies where a party seeks to rely on a non-judicial determination.