CIVIL PROCEDURE — Res Judicata — Distinction Between Estoppel and Res Judicata
Ratio Decidendi
Per Onnoghen, JSC, in Ayuya & Ors v. Yonrin & Ors (2011) NLC-123-24-2002(SC) at p. 16; Paras A—C:
"If a party pleads a judgment as estoppel, what he is telling the court is simply that the court should take the judgment into consideration in considering the totality of the evidence in the present case. When the plea is res judicata on the other hand, the party is saying that although he has already gotten judgment on the piece or parcel of land, he wants the court to adjudicate on the matter that had already been adjudicated upon in his favour which would be contradictory in terms since he would be asking the court to judge what had already been judged, that is why res judicata is a shield, not a sword particularly as the effect of its being sustained is that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present action over the same subject matter between the same parties or their privies."
Explanation / Scope
This principle distinguishes estoppel from res judicata: estoppel is a relevant fact to be considered with the evidence, while res judicata is a shield that bars the court from entertaining an action on a matter already adjudicated between the same parties. The principle applies where prior judgments are relied upon. It ensures that res judicata is properly invoked. The principle reflects that res judicata is a shield, not a sword. It prevents re-litigation. The court must apply the distinction. The principle provides guidance on estoppel and res judicata.