Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI. O.O DATED 22ND OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/106/2012 BETWEEN ADEGBOYEGA OLUSEGUN ONAFUYE & 6 ORS------------ CLAIMANT AND NIGERIAN AGIP OIL CO. (NAOC----------------------------- RESPONDENT REPRESENTATION: Kehinde Babatunde with G.O. Ogefere and Titilope Oluyemi for the counsel Ladipo Soetan with Olamide Balogun for the defendant. JUDGMENT The defendant/applicant filed this application the subject of this ruling on the 4th February, 2015 praying for an order dismissing this suit. The grounds upon which this application is brought are as follows- 1. The claimant are estopped from bringing this action before the Court being that all the causes and issues (except one) upon which this entire action is hinged are causes and issues that have been brought before this honourable Court by representatives of these claimants under another guise in the matter of Nigeria Union of Pensioners, NAOC Branch) V. Nigerian Agip Oil Company Ltd & 2 others, Suit No. NIC/LA/91/2011 and as such have been pronounced upon by this Honourable Court. 2. Apart from the issues already dealt with by this Court in the Ladega case the only claim left is the claim that defendant underpaid the 1st claimant by allegedly manipulating the wages Liquidation statement it gave to the 1st claimant on retirement 18 years after his retirement. 3. The 1st claimant is foreclosed from litigating this remaining cause of action because the action is statute barred as it has been caught up by the applicable limitation laws. In support of this motion is a 22 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Anuoluwapo Odumosu counsel in the law firm of Siji Soetan & Co, solicitors to the applicant. Attached are 6 exhibits. As the practise is, the applicant filed a written address in support of the motion. Defendant set out 4 issues for the determination of this application viz- 1. Whether under the circumstances the claimant are estopped from bringing up previously decided issues before this Honourable Court. 2.. Based on issue 2.1 above whether or not the action as instituted by the claimants constitutes an abuse of Court process. 3. Whether or not the Court possesses the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this matter as a result of 2.1 and 2.2. above. 4. Whether under the circumstances the cause of action as instituted by the claimants claiming that the 1st claimant was underpaid during his retirement from the defendant's employment is statute barred. It is the contention of the defendant/applicant on issue one whilst making reference to the learned author Akinola Aguda's book ''Law of Evidence' 4th Edition page 270, where reference was made to estoppel by record, i.e cause of action etsoppel and issue estoppel. Counsel continued by citing the decision of Denning L.J. in FIDELITAS SHIPPING CO. LTD V. V/O EXPORT.CHLEB [1965] ALL E.R. 4 @ 8, where he held thus-- '' if one party brings an action against another on a particular cause and judgment is then given then such a party cannot bring another action against the same party on that same cause.'' Also cited in the same vein is the case of ALAPO V. AGBOKERE [2010] 14 NWLR (PT. 1213) 50 @ 57. To the applicant's counsel a successful plea of record estoppel must show the following- 1. That the parties ( or their privies as the case may be ) are the same in the present case as they were in the previous case. 2. The issues and subject matter are the same in the present as they were in the previous case. 3. That the adjudication in the previous case must have been given by a court of competent jurisdiction and 4. That the previous decision must have finally decided the issues between the parties. It is submitted that this present suit satisfies all the above conditions for it to succeed. Counsel submits further that the parties in this case and the previous case are the same as Prince Ladega sued in a representative capacity for himself and other members of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners. He referred to a portion of Ladega's judgment where the Court held thus - ''This is a representative action filed by Prince Bandele Ladega for himself and other members of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners NAOC Branch which is clearly stated on the complaint'' Counsel contends that claimants having admitted that they are members of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners NAOC branch are thus bound by the decision of this Court in Ladega's case. Cited in support is the case of AJAYI V. A.G. OGUN STATE [2009] 7 NWLR (PT. 1141) 443 @ 447-448. The Court in that case held that the judgment of the Court is binding on all the members of the family represented including those who prosecuted the case for and on behalf of the entire family. Counsel then stressed that the claimants are privies and parties in the Ladega's case. It is the further position of the applicant's counsel that the facts and the cause of action in the Ladega's case are the same as in this present. It is the argument of the applicant as regards the collective agreement that the applicant had contended in the Ladega's case the lack of privity between it and the claimant/respondent that the agreement were between NUPENG and PENGASSAN on one hand and the defendant on the other hand. Counsel continued that the claimants/respondents were not parties to the said agreement. Reference was made to the decision of this Court on this issue in Ladega's case and urged the Court to discountenance with this case. Counsel made reference to the issues of Medicare and 40th anniversary package which were pronounced upon by this Court in Ladega's case which is also part of the respondents pleadings in this present. The Court was urged to hold that the applicant has successfully pleaded action estoppel, in support is the case of GEGE V. NANDE [2006] 10 NWLR (PT. 988) 256 @ 262-263. It is the additional arguments of the applicant that multiplicity of actions against the same party/s and on same issues is an abuse of Court process. He cited the case of OGOEJEOFO V. OGOEJEOFO [2006] 3 NWLR (PT. 966) 205 @ 208 and submits that the action of the claimants/ respondents in this case is an abuse of the process of this Court, the case having been decided upon by this Court in Ladega's case. As regards issue two, counsel posits that this case having already been litigated upon and decision made thereon by this Court robs it of the jurisdiction to re litigate on same. He urged the Court to dismiss this present case for lack of jurisdiction. It is the submission of the applicant's counsel on issue three, that by Section 8 of Lagos State Limitation Law which provides that actions fond on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date the cause of action accrues and that by paragraphs 1 and 63 of the claimants 3rd amended statement of facts, the 1st claimant retired from the applicant's appointment in 1996 and the wage liquidation statement was given to the 1st claimant in 1996, thus making the accrual date of the cause of action to be in 1996, thus according to counsel that by filing this action after 18 years of the accrual of the cause of action means this action is statute barred. Counsel urged this Court to dismiss this case in its entirety. The claimants/respondents in reacting to this application filed 11paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by the 1st claimant Adegboyega Olusesan Onafuye, he averred that he was not aware of Ladega's case and the claimant in that case did not represent him. Also filed is a written address filed in support of the counter affidavit as arguments in opposition to the defendant's application. The respondents framed 3 issues for the Court's consideration, thus- 1. Whether or not the claimants/respondents are estopped from instituting and/or maintaining the present action as constituted in the circumstances of this case. 2. Whether or not the claimants/respondents' action is an abuse of the Court's process and/or not the claimants/respondents, who had their own action pending before this Court and before judgment was handed down in another matter before another Court of coordinate jurisdiction, are not entitled to a decision in their own action regardless of the outcome or decision in the other matter. 3. Whether or not the 1st claimant's/respondent's claim in respect of an alleged fraudulent manipulation of his wage liquidation statement by the defendant/applicant at retirement resulting in his being underpaid to the tune of N2,677,316.03 as terminal benefit, is statute barred. As a preliminary issue, counsel argued about the competence of the applicant's affidavit, that exhibits NAOC1, NAOC2, NAOC3, NAOC4,NAOC5, NAOC 6, NAOC 7 and NAOC 8 were not certified and are not complete documents and cannot thus be a certified true copy of the public documents they stand to be. Issues one and two were argued together and counsel contends that the respondents are not estopped from instituting this action and that this action is not an abuse of Court process. It is the submission of the respondents that they filed this suit on 26th March, 2012 before the Court in Ladega delivered its judgment. Counsel argued further that the defendant did not file its defence to this suit within the time prescribe for filing same, but filed it later. To the claimants they filed this suit without knowledge of Ladega's case. Counsel stressed that the defendant was served with this complaint on the 13th of July, 2012 while the decision in Ladega's case was made on the 30th July, and submitted that this case is not an abuse of Court's process. Citing the case of ALH. YUSUF & ANOR V. OTUNBA CHIEF (DR) J.A. EWOSU [2014]LPELR. 22953, he submits that to constitute an abuse of the process of Court, the defaulting party must not only be aware but must be seised of the originating processes filed by its adversary in the earlier suit. He urged the Court to hold that the respondents who had filed their action before the judgment in Ladega's case, are entitled to a decision in their own case regardless of the decision in the Ladega's case. It is the further submission of the respondents that for a plea of res judicata to succeed the parties and the cause of action in both the present and the earlier case must be the same. To the respondents the parties in Ladega's case and this present are not the same. Counsel posits that the respondents in this case have averred that they do not know Ladega and equally denied knowledge of that case. Counsel posited that the issues in Ladega's case are different from the instance case, that there was no pleadings in Ladega's case being an originating summons. On whether the issues in this instance case has been decided upon, counsel contends that the pronouncement of the Court was obiter. Counsel went on that the Court in this case have to decide on whether or not the defendant/applicant is a government owned company or not and that according to him was not determined by the Court in Ladega's case. Counsel submits that the Court has held in cases of CBN. V. JACOB OLADELE AMAO [2010] LPELR. 838 and J.A. ADEKOYE & ORS V. NIG SECURITY PRINTING MINTING CO. LTD [2009] LPELR. 106, that it is possible for a company to be Federal government owned and its staff Public Servants under Sections 318 of the 1999 Constitution as amended. As regards issue 3, it is submitted that the 1st claimant got to know of the fraudulent underpayment of his wage liquidation in May, 2011 and that by Section 58 of the same Lagos limitation Law, which is to the effect that where an action is based on fraud of the defendant, the period of limitation shall not run until the Plaintiff has discovered the fraud and to that extent the period of limitation will start running in May, 2011 when he got to know of the fraud. He thus urged the Court to resolve this issue in support of the respondents. The applicant filed a reply on points of law on the 7th of May, 2015 in response to the respondents arguments. In response to the completeness and competence of the defendant's affidavit, reference was made to the decision of the Court in KUBOR & ANOR V. HON. SERIAKE HENRY DICKSON & ORS, SUPRA, it is the submission of the applicant that the decision in this case has no nexus with this present case. applicant's counsel submits further that the exhibits complained off by the claimant/respondents are documents that emanates from this Court and by Section 102 (a) (iii) of the Evidence Act 2011 are public documents and same shall be certified by the public officer who has custody of same, Section 104(1) and (2) of Evidence Act. Counsel contends that the exhibits complained off were certified by the public officers who certified them, it bears their name, i.e. Messr Kingsley Idehen, Ezekiel Olu Oluyomi and Yakubu Hauwa, their signatures and official titles in compliance with Section 104 of the Evidence Act. Thus placing reliance on Sections 102, 104 and 105 of the Evidence Act, he urged the Court to discountenance respondents arguments on this. As regards the viability or otherwise of the representative action filed in the Ladega's case, it is the reaction of the applicant that the decision of this Court in Ladega's case who filed a representative action for and on behalf of himself and other members of Nigerian Union of Pensioners NAOC Branch, that this issue was addressed by my learned brother Hon. Justice Obaseki Osaghae, who stated thus.- '' This is a representative action filed by Prince Bandele Ladega for himself and other members of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners NAOC Branch which is clearly stated on the complaint'' that what the claimants are asking the Court to do is to sit on appeal on its own decision. Counsel posits that the claimants have not at any point denied their membership of the said Nation Union of Pensioners NAOC Branch. The case of EJEZIE V. ANUWU [2008] 12 NWLR (PT. 1101) 446 @ 470. It is further submitted that the subject matter in Ladega's case are the same issues the claimants are requesting this Court to decide on. Whilst arguing that mere arguments by the claimants that they were not aware of Ladega's case, cannot be sufficient prove or avail them in their discharge of the burden of proof as regards their non awareness of Ladega's case and urged the Court to discountenance claimants arguments and uphold applicant's application with cost. I have gleaned through the processes filed and have heard arguments of both counsel in their respective submissions for and against the issues raised by each of them. The main issues are whether or not this suit is an abuse of Court process and thus the claimant is estopped from filing this suit having been first decided upon by this Court in Ladega's case. The question that need answers is, are the claimants estopped from filing this case and is it an abuse of the process of this Court?. I need to address some preliminary issues raised by the respondents counsel. As regards the issue of non certification or completeness of the attached exhibits to the applicants affidavit, I perused the exhibits i.e. exhibits NAOC1- NAOC8, it is observed as correctly stated by the applicant that they are all documents that emanates from this Court and were all certified by Messr Kingsley Idehen, Ezekiel Olu Oluyomi and Yakubu Hauwa who are all staff of this Court. Their names, signatures and designations were all endorsed on the exhibits. That suffices as proper certification of public documents and in accordance with Section 102 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, I find that the exhibits forms part of this application. It is also the contention of the respondents that this suit was filed before the Court delivered its judgment in Ladega's case. That the defendant in this case did not file its defence within time and that the decision in Ladega's case was an obiter and not a final decision. It is pertinent to state that the law is long settled that where a suit is filed by the same party/s on the same subject matter both filed almost at the same time, co existing side by side with each other is an abuse of Court process. Applying this to the instance application, the fact that this case was filed even before the decision in the Ladega's case was delivered, if found to have fulfilled the condition for a plea of estoppel, the Court would not hesitate to so hold. As regards the decision of the Court in Laadega's case, the case was initiated by an originating summons, the respondent filed their reaction to same and equally filed their respective written addresses in support of their positions before the Court delivered its judgment. The judgment of the Court was handed down by a competent Court who has the power to adjudicate on the case. The decision of the Court in Ladega's does not in any way represents an obiter, rather it was a full judgment delivered by a competent Court. I therefore, discountenance the submission of the learned claimants counsel in that regard. Now, to answer the main issues raised in this application, it is the contention of the applicant's counsel that the parties in this case and the previous case are the same as Prince Ladega sued in a representative capacity for himself and other members of the Nigerian Union of Pensioners and thus the claimants are estopped from bringing this action before the Court. His argument is that all the cause and issues upon which the entire action is premised have been decided upon by this Court in Ladega's case except only one issue which to the applicant is statute barred. In support counsel annexed the originating process filed in Ladega's case, the defence and the judgment of this Court Per Hon. Justice Obaseki Osaghae; also annexed is a notice of discontinuance of a suit also filed by one Patrick Ikpokotin Oboh on behalf of other members of National Union of Pensioners NAOC branch in 2009. It is the further position of the applicant counsel that the claimants in this case having admitted to be members of Nigerian Union of Pensioners NAOC Branch, they thus be bound by the decision of this Court in Ladega's case, in support the case of AJAYI V. A.G. OGUN STATE, SUPRA, was cited. To the applicant's counsel all the issues decided upon by the Court in Ladega's case are one and the same with the issues raised by the claimants in this. It is the reaction of the respondents on the other hand that the respondents are not estopped from instituting this action and that this action is not an abuse of Court process. It is the submission of the respondents that they filed this suit on 26th March, 2012 before the Court in Ladega delivered its judgment. Citing the case of ALH. YUSUF & ANOR V. OTUNBA CHIEF (DR) J.A. EWOSU [2014]LPELR. 22953, counsel submits that to constitute an abuse of the process of Court, the defaulting party must not only be aware but must be seised of the originating processes filed by its adversary in the earlier suit. He urged the Court to hold that the respondents who had filed their action before the judgment in Ladega's case, are entitled to a decision in their own case regardless of the decision in the Ladega's case. It is the further countenance of the respondents that the parties in Ladega's case are not the same with the present case, ditto the issues. Learned respondents counsel argued also that the judgment of the Court in Ladega's case was obiter, hence the need for this Court to hear and determine this present. What then is the doctrine of res judicata and does it apply to the facts of this case? It is simply that once a dispute or matter has been finally and judicially pronounced upon or determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, neither the parties thereto nor their privies can subsequently be allowed to relitigate the matter because a judicial determination properly handed down is conclusive until reversed by an appellate court. The veracity of that decision or determination is also not open to a challenge nor can it be contradicted. The doctrine is grounded in public policy which stipulates that there must be an end to litigation as captured in the latin maxim "interest reipublicac at sit finis litium. See DANIEL TAYAR TRANS ENT. NIG. CO.LTD. V. BUSARI (2011) 8 NWLR 387. See also the case of AKOMA & ANOR V. OBI OSENWOKWU & ANOR [2014] 5 MJSC, (PT.1) P 32 @ P.53,55- 56; TUKUR V. UBA.& ORS [2012] LPELR, 9337; AGBOGUNLERI V. DEPO [2008] 3NWLR (PT. 1074) 217. As asserted by both parties, for a plea of estoppel to succeed the parties ( or their privies as the case may be ) and issues and subject matter must be the same. The Court must be a Court of competent jurisdiction and its decision must have been finally decided the issues. I have had cause to consider the facts of Ladega's case, the originating summons, the reaction to same by the defendant in that case and the decision of the Court delivered by His Lordship, Hon. Justice Obaseki Osaghae my learned brother, which are all annexed to the application herein before me. I have equally read through the claims before me as its required of me to do. It is pertinent for me at this stage to reproduce some of the pivotal issues/facts of the Ladega's case and the claims in this present as follows-- LADEGA’S CASE 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to the harmonization of the pensions of their members, comprehensive Medicare with spouses, and other welfaristic packages as stipulated by the collective agreement between the claimant and the defendants. 2. Whether the claimant being a trade union under the applicable law are entitled to have their check off dues deducted from source and remitted same to the appropriate quarters in line with Trade Union Act, cap 437 LFN 1990 by the 1st defendant. a. Declaration that the claimant and other members of Nigeria Union of Pensioners (NAOC) Branch are entitled to harmonization of their pensions, comprehensive Medicare with their spouses, security and maintenance allowances 40th and 45th Anniversary package and other welfaristic provisions in line with the stipulations in the collective agreement existing between the claimant and the 1st defendant. b. Declaration that refusal, failure and/or negligence of the 2nd and 3rd defendants from taking necessary steps to ensure that the 1st defendant comply with and implement the collective agreement executed by them for and on behalf of the claimant is wrongful and improper. c. Declaration that the refusal, failure and/or negligence of the 1st defendant to be deducting check off dues of the claimant’s union members Pensions from source and paying same to Nigeria Union of Pensioners headquarters account is wrongful and illegal. d. An order compelling the 1st defendant to fully comply with and implement provisions of the collective agreement together with the Federal Government directive guiding the relationship between the claimant and the 1st Defendant as regards welfaristic provisions thereof. e. An order directing the 1st Defendant to be deducting the claimant’s check off dues from source and paying same to the account in Nigeria Union of Pensioners Headquarters in Abuja. ADEGBOYEGA CASE.[ THIS CASE] 1. A declaration that the Defendant, being the operator of a Joint Venture Arrangement in which the Federal Government owns the controlling share of 60% and/or as a Federal Government owned company, is amenable to Federal Government circulars in respect of Harmonization of Pensions particularly the Federal Government circular dated 30th January, 1997 with reference No.B.63216/S.J/X/13/105 to Federal Government owned companies. 2. A declaration that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Claimants are entitled to pension from the Defendant Company for life. 3. A declaration that the widows of the retirees/pensioners of the Defendant Company who enjoyed comprehensive Medicare during the lives of their husbands are entitled to a continuation of such Medicare during their life time. 4. A declaration that the Claimants are entitled to the same 40th Anniversary gift/package and/or any other anniversary gift/package which the Defendant Company gave (or shall give) to the serving staff while they are still alive insofar as the period under reference includes the period of their active years. 5. A declaration that on a true construction of (a) Federal Government White Paper Ref. No. AFN/86/2/376 dated 7th October, 1997, (b) Federal Government Circulars Ref. Nos. 136321/S.T3/105 dated 30th January, 1997 and B3216/S.IIT3/124 dated 7th January, 1998 the claimants are entitled under the Federal Government Policy on Harmonization of Pensions as are based with effect from 7th January, 1997 on emoluments currently earned by their serving counterparts. 6. The Claimants’ entitlements, as retirees/pensioners, are also contained in the circulars to Federal Government owned companies. It is so obvious from the facts and issues in the two cases highlighted supra, that the causes, issues and subject matter in both the Ladega's case and this present are the same, although coined in different language and guise. The main issues are that of harmonization of pensions and welfaristic packages as provided under the Federal Government circular stated above. On whether or not the parties are the same, It is the position of the applicant that the Ladega's case is a representative action filed on behalf of Nigerian Union of Pensioners of which the claimants in this case are members and that the Court in Ladega's case alluded to that. However, the respondent herein argued that they were not aware of Ladega's case and they never authorised Ladega to file the suit. The apex Court in DANIEL TAYAR TRANS ENT.NIG.CO. LTD V. BUSARI supra; held as regards a representative action, that a judgment obtained by a party in a representative capacity binds every member who falls within the group or persons represented. It is not in contention that the claimants/including the deceased in this case are all members of Nigerian Union of pensioners NAOC Branch and the Court in Ladega's case has finally decided on the issue of harmonization of their pensions, their members comprehensive Medicare with their spouses and other welfaristic packages as stipulated by the collective agreement between the pensioners and the defendant. The issue of 40th and 45th Anniversary package and the implementation of Federal Government circular of directive as regards the claimants welfare were all issues determined and decided upon by the Court in Ladega's case. The claimants in this case, going by the decision in TARYAR'S case supra, are therefore bound by the decision in Ladega's case. See also the case of OKOLI DIM V. ENEMUO [2009] 5 SCM. P. 143 @ P.182. The spirit behind the doctrine of estoppel is that there must be an end to litigation. The Court in Ladega's case at page 7, the last paragraph held thus- '' The claimants want their pension harmonized and are relying on circulars emanating from the Federal Government in 1999 and 2000 addressed to the Ministries, Extra Ministerial Department and Agencies, Federal Civil Service Commission, Secretaries to State Governments, Heads of Service, Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court and other Public Service officers on the review of pension rates and harmonization. These circulars relate to public sector pensions. None of the circulars was addressed or directed to the private sector which the 1st defendant belongs to and so it is not bound by any of the circulars...'' It is clear from the above decision of the Court that the issue of harmonization of pension of the claimant in accordance with the Federal Government circular is laid to rest in Ladega's case by my learned brother and cannot be resurrected in this case. They should allow this issue to rest in peace. hence the claimants are estopped from raising same in this case, except on appeal. It is also noteworthy that the issue of medicare for pensioners and their spouses was equally dealt with and put paid to by the Court in Ladega's case. By that judgment, the issues have already become the subject of a final judicial pronouncement as between the parties both in this case and Ladega's case. The claimants are thus estopped from re opening it. Accordingly, the applicant's plea of estoppel succeeds. I so hold. Now as regards the issue of under payment of the 1st claimant by the defendant in this case, it is the contention of the applicant that the issue is statute barred as the 1st claimant was retired since April 30th, 1996, that by Section 8 of Lagos State Limitation Law which limits the time for institution of a suit to six years. This suit is Statue barred. However, the claimants argued that by Section 58 of the Limitation Law of Lagos State, where the action is based on fraud the limitation law shall not run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud and submits that time will not start running until May, 2011, when the 1st claimant became aware of the fraud complained off. I have gone through the amended statement of facts filed by the claimants in order to ascertain when the 1st claimant cause of action as regards the fraudulent underpayment arose. It is discovered that the claimants at paragraphs 55 and 56 were retired between 1996 and 1998 and that the 1st claimant alleged that he was underpaid, there is nothing in these two paragraphs revealing when the 1st claimant got to know of the fraud. It is the submission of the respondents that the applicant did not controvert its submission hence it is deemed admitted. I beg to disagree with this position, that where a party failed to challenge a fact, the Court should admit same line hook and sinker as the true position of what transpired, rather the true position of the law is that it is incumbent on the Court to ensure that the fact in question is cogent and credible. Paragraph 55 and 56 which talk about the alleged fraudulent underpayment of the 1st claimant did not state when the 1st claimant got to know of the alleged fraudulent underpayment. The cause of action as revealed by the statement of facts arose in 1996 when the 1st claimant was paid his terminal benefit upon retirement and nothing more. The Court cannot close its eyes to such. See MAGAJI V. NIGERIAN ARMY [2008] 8 NWLR (PT. 1089) 388 @ 393, para. D (SC). It is trite that the issue of statute of limitation affects the foundation of a suit, thus affecting the life and existence of the case, and consequently affects the competence of the Court to entertain same. It is hereby found that this case having been filed beyond the prescribed period of 6 years is statute barred and thus disqualifies this Court from entertaining same. I therefore resolve this issue in favour of the applicant. It is obvious from all the above that this case having satisfied the rules of res judicata and also an abuse of the process of Court; therefore the proper order to make in this instance is for dismissal. See AFRICAN RE. CORP. V. J.D.P. CONST. (NIG.) LTD. [2003] 13 NWLR (PT.838)609. Consequently, I hold that this application succeeds, this suit No NICN/LA/106/2012. is hereby dismissed. Cost is put at N50,000 against the claimants. Judgment is accordingly entered. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA. O. JUDGE