GROUP 8

NAMES OF GROUP MEMBERS AND ROLES

1)EMMANUEL OGBONNA. C
BU/21C/LAW/5893
(SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS)

2.) MMEDIANABASI IDONGESIT AKPAN

BU/21A/LAW/5174
(DEFENDANTS COUNSEL)

3.) FYNE-AKAH NDAMZI

BU/21A/LAW/4804
(PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL)

4.) NAEEMA KAY ISIYAKU

BU/21A/LAW/5253
(THE COURT STENOGRAPHER)

5.) HAUWA SANI BAKORI

BU/21A/LAW/4931
(THE DEFENDANT)

6.) NYAME JOLLY AKACHUKWU

BU/21A/LAW/5064
(THE PLAINTIFF)

7.) RABIATU IBRAHIM USMAN

BU/21A/LAW/4856
(THE PLAINTIFFS WITNESS)

8.) BAKO MADDI

BU/21A/LAW/4868
(THE JUDGE)

9.) AISHA DASUKI ARABI

BU/21A/LAW/4805
(THE NARRATOR)

TOPIC: THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

 The doctrine of res judicata is similar to the criminal law concept of double jeopardy, but in a
civil law setting. Res judicata bars any party to a civil lawsuit from suing again on the same
claim or issue that has previously been decided by the court. This includes any issue that was
heard and decided in the first lawsuit, even if the subsequent lawsuit attempts to state different
reasons the party should prevail.
A case that has been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, and not subject to re-litigation
by the same parties. There is a need to prevent people who are not happy with the outcome of
their civil lawsuit from re-filing the same matter again, hoping to get a different result.

The doctrine of res judicata addresses this issue, as it bars any party to a civil lawsuit from
seeking to have the matter retried once a judgment has been issued by the court. This applies
whether the party wishing a new trial has new evidence to present, or attempts to state a
different reason for his claim for damages for the same violation of his rights.

For example
Nathaniel was injured when he was rear-ended while waiting at a stoplight. After seeking
medical treatment, Nathaniel files a civil lawsuit seeking reimbursement for his medical
expenses, as well as for his time off work while he recuperates. The judge decides in
Nathaniel’s favor, and orders the other driver to pay Nathaniel’s medical bills, missed work, and
pain and suffering.
A couple of months later, Nathaniel realizes that he cannot afford to repair the damages his
car sustained in the accident. He files a second lawsuit, asking that the other driver be ordered
to pay for the N4,000,000 repairs. In many jurisdictions, Nathaniel’s second claim (for car
repairs) would be dismissed, as he could have, and should have, brought the claim up during
the original lawsuit. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to ensure all claims resulting from the same
incident are brought up and tried together.

This doctrine was elucidated in the case of Green v Coetzer 1958 where the plaintiff had
previously sued in respect of damage to his motorcycle which was involved in a Collision. He
later sought to claim damages in respect of personal injuries sustained in the same action.
The court granted the defendant leave to file a special plea of res judicata on the grounds
that damages had already been granted since the facts gave rise to a single cause of action and
not two.

ELEMENTS OF RES JUDICATA

There are certain elements that must be present in order for a litigant’s claim of res judicata to
be considered valid. The party claiming res judicata must show to the court the following:
1. the specific cause of action in the prior lawsuit.

2. The specific issue or fact that was addressed and decided in the prior lawsuit.

3. The identities of the parties to the prior lawsuit.

4. The designation or position of the parties in the previous lawsuit (which parties were
plaintiffs, and which were defendants)
5. Whether the judgment on the previous lawsuit was final.
6. Whether all parties to the previous lawsuit were given full and fair opportunity to be
heard on the issue.
 7. Whether all parties to the previous lawsuit were given full and fair opportunity to be
heard on the issue.

LIMITATIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

The limitations to the doctrine includes
1. The authority of res judicata does not prevent a party from calling into question the
information derived from civil proceedings in a subsequent criminal trial, but only insofar
as that party was not a party to the civil proceedings or did not have the opportunity to
freely defend his interests there.
2. An overruled decision or a decision of nullity can be reviewed by the same or a different
one and the doctrine would also not apply.
3. Another limitation is where there are errors made by the court in the original trial, and
they may be taken before an appellate court.

PRESENTATION CASE STUDY

The plaintiff “A” is driving and crashes into the defendant “B” who was on a phone call and not
focusing on driving.
“A” files a suit against “B” in the High court of the FCT for tortious negligence pleading for the
sum of one million naira as damages.
The plaintiffs counsel proves his case to the judge who rules in his favour agreeing that “B” was
indeed negligent but only grants the sum of five hundred thousand naira as damages.

“A” is aggrieved by the decision of the high court of the FCT and in order to recover more
money decides to file a similar suit in the High Court of Kano state

This time the defendant raises the doctrine of res judicata stating that their case has already
been tried and concluded and as a result cannot be brought before another court as there has
to be an end to litigation
The court affirms this and overrules the suit against “B”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Green v Coetzer 1958 (2) SA 697 (W)
2. CJ Okoye, “The scope and limitation of the limitation of res judicata”
{https://cjokoyelawview.com/component/k2/item/967-the-scope-limitations-of-the-
limitation-of-res-judicata} accessed 24 october 2022
3. “The doctrine of Res judicata” {https://legaldictionary.net/res-judicata/} accessed 24
october 2022