Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant in this case approached the Court via a General Form of Complaint dated 25/5/15 and claims the following reliefs - 1. A declaration that by the provisions of Approved Rates for monetization of fringe benefits in the Federal Civil Service which commenced the monetization scheme effective 1st October, 2003, the Approved Guidelines for the Sale of Federal Government property as well as the Generic Guidelines for the Reforms on Parastatals of Federal Government, the Claimant who is a legal sitting occupier of her official allocated residential quarters at No. 101/1, 7th Lane, Railway Compound, Ebute-Metta, Lagos is entitled to right of first refusal (as part of her fringe benefits) to bid for and buy the affected occupied property before any such affected property can be validly offered to the public to bid for and purchase. 2. A declaration that by virtue of the provisions of approved rates for monetization for fringe benefits in the Federal Civil Service, the Approved Guidelines for the Sale of Federal Government property as well as the Generic Guidelines for the reforms on parastatals of Federal Government the right of the Claimant to right of first refusal over her official allocated quarters as sitting occupier accrued on 1st October, 2003 the date on which the monetization scheme became effective and continued throughout her service with the Federal Medical Centre under the Federal Ministry of Health. 3. An Order compelling the Defendants to issue and avail the Claimant bidding forms to enable her exercise her right of first refusal to purchase her official occupied apartment as guaranteed by paragraph 12 of the Approved Guidelines vested in the 1st Defendant in Lagos. 4. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants whether acting by themselves or through their servants, agents/or privies or whatsoever acting on their behalf or authority, from ejecting the Claimant sitting occupier from her officially allocated flat, house and/or apartment owned by the Nigerian Railway Corporation being an agency of the Federal Government without first giving the Claimant an opportunity to exercise right of first refusal to purchase her flat, house and/or apartment in accordance with the Approved Guidelines. 5. And for such other or further consequential orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make. The Claimant accompanied her Form 1 with all frontloaded processes as required by the Rules of this Court. The Defendants subsequently entered an appearance. Defendants did not file statement of defence. Rather notices of preliminary objections were filed. This Court on 16/2/16 directed learned Counsel on either side to address it on whether or not its jurisdiction to adjudicate over this matter is not ousted. An address on jurisdiction was filed by the 1st Defendant on 13/4/16. In it learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss this action with substantial cost in favour of the 1st Defendant. On the other hand, learned Counsel to the Claimant filed a written address dated 18/4/16 and filed on 19/4/16. Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant having filed her action within 12 months as provided by section 83 of the Nigerian Railway Act, 2004; that same is valid and that it has successfully activated the jurisdiction of this Court. Counsel therefore urged the Court to assume jurisdiction and determine this suit. While preparing this Ruling, I came across the decision of the Hon President of this Court in Suit No: NICN/LA/11/2011 Nigerian Union of Railway Workers & Anor. v. Nigerian Railway Corporation & Ors. In paragraphs 19, 20 & 21 of her statement of facts, the Claimant had averred that that suit was pending and Judgment yet to be delivered. In paragraph 19 of her statement of facts, the Claimant had averred that - '19. 'The continued refusal of the 1st Defendant to implement the monetization policy was met with litigation by the two in-house workers' unions of the 1st Defendant in Suit No: NICN/LA/11/2011 between NIGERIA UNION OF RAILWAY WORKERS & ANOR. v. NIGERIA RAILWAY CORPORATION & OTHERS wherein the unions are seeking following reliefs in this Honourable Court: “1. A declaration that extant “Approved Guidelines for the sale of Federal Government Property” published on page 20 of the Daily Champion Newspaper of Monday 20th day of June, 2005 as well as “Generic Guidelines For the Reform of Parastatals” issued by the Bureau of Public Service Reforms in Collaboration with the Bureau of Public Enterprises published by the Presidency in March 2006 are binding on the management of Nigerian Railway Corporation and the IMPLEMENTION COMMITTEE OF THE WHITE PAPER ON THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO ALIENATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LANDED PROPERTY in the disposal of ALL RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES (houses, flats etc.) built acquired or otherwise owned by the Nigeria Railway Corporation being an agency of the Federal government; and the said properties are not exempted from the application of the Guidelines. 2. A declaration that pursuant to Paragraph 12 of the aforesaid Approved Guidelines all members of the Claimant Union who are legal sitting tenants in the said qualified and affected properties are entitled to right of first refusal (as part of their fringe benefits) to bid for and buy the affected occupied properties before any such affected properties can be validly offered to the public to bid for and purchase. 3. A declaration that any offer made to any third party or non-sitting tenant employees of 1st Defendant who are members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants unions as of date the commencement of this suit, in respect of the residential houses and flats and other tenanted accommodation which they occupy as part of their fringe benefits, in derogation of the exercise of their rights of first refusal to purchase their tenanted apartments as guaranteed by Paragraph 12 of the Approved Guidelines for the Sale of Federal Government Properties vested in the 1st Defendant in all its stations throughout Nigeria, is illegal and ineffectual. 4. An order compelling the Defendants to issue and avail the Claimants members who are legal sitting tenants in the residential houses and flats and other tenanted accommodation which they occupy as part of their fringe benefits, bidding forms to enable each of them exercise their rights of first refusal to purchase their tenanted apartments as guaranteed by Paragraph 12 of the Approved Guidelines for the Sale of Federal Government Properties vested in the 1st Defendant in all its stations throughout Nigeria. 5. An order setting aside any offer made to any third party or non-sitting tenant employees of 1st Defendant who are members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants’ unions as of date the commencement of this suit, in respect of the residential houses and flats and other tenanted accommodation which they occupy as part of their fringe benefits, in derogation of the exercise of their rights of first refusal to purchase their tenanted apartments as guaranteed by Paragraph 12 of the Approved Guidelines for the Sale of Federal Government Properties vested in the 1st Defendant in all its stations throughout Nigeria. 6. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant whether acting by themselves or through their servants agents and/or privies or whosoever acting on their behalf or authority, from offering for bid to purchase, selling or disposing to the public, or ejecting such employees sitting tenants therefrom in pursuit of such sale, all or any of Residential Facilities (houses, flats etc.) built acquired or otherwise owned by the Nigeria Railway Corporation being an agency of the Federal Government, and which presently are legally occupied by members of the Claimants union in the employment of the 1st Defendant as legal sitting tenants, without first giving to each such employee opportunity to exercise right of first refusal to purchase the said property (ies) in accordance with the Approved Guidelines. 7. And for such other or further consequential orders as the honourable court may deem fit to make. ''20. The above suit which is pending before Honourable Justice B. A. Adejumo, OFR, President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria is yet to be determined as to declare whether the 1st Defendant is bound to comply with the monetization policy as regards sale of residential quarters as sought in this suit''. Judgment in the said case was delivered on 6/1/16. In the said Judgment, the President of this Court had ordered and declared as follows - ''1. That the extant “Approved Guidelines for the sale of Federal Government Property” published at page 20 of the Daily Champion Newspaper of Monday 20th June, 2005 as well as the “Generic Guidelines for the Reform of Parastatals” issued by the Bureau of Public Service Reforms in collaboration with the Bureau of Public Enterprises published by the Presidency in March 2006 are binding on the Management of the Nigerian Railway and the Implementation Committee of the White Paper on the Commission of Inquiry into Alienation of Federal Government Landed Property in the disposal of all residential facilities (houses, flats etc.) built, acquired or otherwise owned by the Nigerian Railway Corporation being an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria; and the said properties or facilities not exempted from the application of the guidelines. 2. That pursuant to Clause 12 of the aforesaid Approved Guidelines all members of the claimants unions who are legal sitting tenants in the said qualified and affected properties are entitled to right of first refusal (as part of their fringe benefits) to bid for and buy the affected properties before any such affected properties can be validly offered to the public to bid for and purchase. 3. That the Defendants shall issue and avail to the Claimants’ members who are legal sitting tenants in the residential houses and flats and other tenanted accommodation which they occupy as part of their fringe benefits, bidding forms to enable each of them exercise their rights of first refusal to purchase their tenanted apartments as guaranteed by paragraph 12 of the Approved Guidelines for sale of Federal Government Properties vested in the 1st Defendant in all its stations throughout Nigeria. 4. That any offer made to any third party or non-sitting tenant employees of the 1st Defendant who are members of the 1st and 2nd Claimants unions as at the date of the commencement of this suit in respect of the residential houses, flats and other tenanted accommodation which they occupy as part of their fringe benefits, in derogation of the exercise of their rights of first refusal to purchase their tenanted apartments as guaranteed by paragraph 12 of the Approved Guidelines for the sale of Federal Government Properties vested in the 1st Defendant in all its stations throughout Nigeria is hereby set aside. 5. The Defendants whether by themselves or their agents, servants, privies or any person whatsoever acting on their behalf or authority are hereby perpetually restrained from offering for bid to purchase, sell or otherwise disposing to the public, or ejecting such employees sitting tenants therefrom in pursuit of such sale, all or any of residential facilities (houses, flats etc.) built, acquired or otherwise owned by the Nigeria Railway Corporation being an agency of the Federal Government of Nigeria and which presently are legally occupied by members of the Claimants’ unions in the employment of the 1st Defendant as legal sitting tenants, without first giving each such employee opportunity to exercise their right of first refusal to purchase the said propert (ies) in accordance with the Approved Guidelines''. It was in cognizance of this Judgment that I caused the parties to be invited to Court on 24/11/16. The Court on that day, again, and this time, specifically directed the learned Counsel on either side to address the Court on whether in the light of the said Judgment this Court still has power to adjudicate on the issues for determination as contained in the General Form of Complaint of the Claimant. Unfortunately, none of the learned Counsel filed an address as directed by this Court. Now from the facts of this case, it is apparent that the Claimant is a member of the 1st Claimant in Suit No: NICN/LA/11/2011. The Defendants in that suit are the 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants in the present suit. Again, going by the reliefs sought by the Claimant in the present case and those granted by the Hon President of this Court in NICN/LA/11/2011 delivered on 6/1/16 it is beyond doubt that the issues and relief are the same. Can this Court therefore in the light of that Judgment continue to exercise its jurisdiction on the present case? Is this Court competent to adjudicate on the issues already heard and determined by a competent Court? I have pointed out that the issues raised in both cases are the same. The parties in both suits are the same or substantially the same. The Judgment of the Hon President of this Court in that case is one by a Court of competent jurisdiction. That Judgment has not been challenged on appeal and neither has the Court in question been approached to set same aside or vary its effects for whatever reason. By the doctrine of res judicata is this Court sufficiently empowered to adjudicate on the present case by the Claimant? The doctrine of res judicata is an issue of law which the Court may raise suo motu and make pronouncement on same subject to a proviso that parties are afforded opportunity to address the Court on it. See Eco International Bank Plc v. Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees, Jalingo LGC & Anor. (2014) LPELR-24171 (CA). That opportunity was afforded learned Counsel on either side on 24/11/16 when they were invited by this Court and directed to address it specifically on the effect of the Judgment of Hon. Justice B. A. Adejumo, OFR the Hon. President respecting the jurisdiction of this Court over the present case. 'Res judicata' otherwise fully known as 'res judicata proveritate accipitur' (is Latin for a thing adjudicated is received as the truth) means an issue that has been definitely settled by judicial decision or judgment, an affirmative defence barring the same parties from litigating a second law suit on the same claim, or any other claim arising from the same transaction or series of transactions and that could have been but was not raised in the first suit. See Abe v. Adeniyi [2007] 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 1023) 191 at 193 - 194. Res judicata gives effect to the policy of the law that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies, and so constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent action involving the same claim, demand or cause of action. See Abiola & Sons. Co. Ltd. v. 7up Bottling Co. Ltd (2012) 15 NWLR Part 1322 page 184 at 200 . See also Igbani & Anor. v. Bayelsa State INEC & Ors. (2013) LPELR-21239 (CA). In Bwacha v. Ikenya & Ors. (2011) LPELR-8105 the apex Court of the land examined the doctrine of issue estoppel per res judicatum and noted that the doctrine has been traced to the English case of Duchess of Kingston (1775 - 1802) All E.R. Rep 623, but its formulation has not been fixed or static; that it has been expanded in several cases to meet circumstances which call for application of the policy of law that underlines the doctrine of estoppel per rem judicatam, namely that there must be an end to litigation; that such extension of the doctrine is found in Fidelitus Shipping Co. Ltd. v. V/O Export-Chleb (1965) 2 All E.R. 4 at 10 where it was applied to issues determined at the interlocutory stage. The Supreme Court further pointed out the fact that the doctrine has been received into our laws in this country by a long line of authorities is not at all in doubt. A major rationale behind this doctrine is that there must be an end to litigation and the imperative of avoiding multiplicity of actions. Having examined the parties in Suit No: NICN/LA/11/2011 and the present case, the issues raised and reliefs sought in both cases and the Judgment of the Court in that case, I have no hesitation in holding that the jurisdiction of this Court is ousted by the doctrine of res judicatum and the Claimant prevented from re-litigating the issues decided in that earlier suit. To exercise jurisdiction will tantamount to this Court rehearing the matter already completely decided upon or sitting on appeal on the decision of not only of Court of competent jurisdiction but also of coordinate jurisdiction in Suit No: NICN/LA/11/2011.See Senator Chris Adighije v. Hon. Nkechi J. N. Nwaogu (2008) LPELR-3626 (CA). See also Dr. Janet Titilayo Bamgbose & Anor. v. Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta Suit No: NICN/LA/371/2013 delivered on 1/12/16. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as stated in this Ruling, I hold that the Claimant is estopped from re-litigating these issues having been caught by the doctrine of res judicata. I also hold that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine this case the issues having already been heard and determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case is dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge