Principle Statement

Where ordinarily a judgment of court, which is final between the same parties, with the same questions for determination and before a competent court, cannot operate as estoppel per rem judicatam, it may constitute a prima facie act of possession where it pertains to a land in dispute.

Ratio Decidendi (Source)

Per Adekeye, JSC, in Obineche & Ors v. Akusobi & Ors (2010) NLC-123-287-2003(SC) at p. 12; Paras A-B.

"Where ordinarily a judgment of court, which is final between the same parties, with the same questions for determination and before a competent court, cannot operate as estoppel per rem judicatam, it may constitute a prima facie act of possession where it pertains to a land in dispute."

Explanation / Scope

This principle establishes that a judgment that may not operate as estoppel per rem judicatam can still constitute a prima facie act of possession if it pertains to the land in dispute. The principle applies where a judgment is relied upon as proof of possession. It ensures that judgments can serve as evidence of possession. The principle reflects the evidentiary value of judgments. It prevents judgments from being disregarded merely because they do not meet the requirements for estoppel. The court must consider the judgment as evidence. The principle provides guidance on the use of judgments as proof of possession.


Cases Applying This Principle