CIVIL PROCEDURE — Res Judicata — Conditions for Application of Doctrine of Estoppel per Rem Judicatam
Ratio Decidendi
Per Kutigi, JSC (as he then was), in Abubakar v. Bebeji Oil and Allied Products Ltd (2007) NLC-123-110-2001(SC) at p. 34; Paras A–B:
Ratio Decidendi (Source): "It is settled by countless number of judicial authorities that a plaintiff is caught by the plea of estoppel per rem judicatam where - '1. The parties (or their privies as the case may be) in the previous case are the same as in the present case. 2. The issue and subject matter or res litigated upon in the previous action is the same as in the present action. 3. The adjudication in the previous case must have been given by a court of competent jurisdiction. 4. The previous judgment relied upon must have finally decided the issues between the parties.'"
Explanation / Scope
Res judicata (or estoppel per rem judicatam) is a doctrine of finality that prevents parties from re-litigating matters already decided by a competent court. The four conditions are cumulative—all must be satisfied for the plea to succeed. The requirement of “same parties” extends to privies—persons with a sufficient interest in the subject matter. “Same issue” means the legal question and the facts are substantially identical. The previous court must have had jurisdiction, as a judgment from a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. Finally, the previous judgment must be final and conclusive, not interlocutory. The doctrine serves to protect the public interest in finality, prevent oppression of defendants, and conserve judicial resources. Once a matter is finally decided, it is closed forever between the parties.