MAKUN V. FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, MINNA (2011)

Background

The appeal concerned compensation for land acquired by the Niger State Government for the construction of the Federal University of Technology, Minna. The appellants sued in a representative capacity for several affected villages whose inhabitants owned, occupied and cultivated the acquired land. They claimed compensation not only for the land but also for economic crops and other interests connected with their livelihood.

The communities engaged Summit Chambers as their solicitors under an agreement dated 23 January 1984 to recover the compensation due to them. The appellants’ valuer assessed the compensation at approximately N19.76 million, while the university’s valuer assessed it at about N18.89 million. At a meeting held on 7 August 1984, representatives connected with Summit Chambers participated in discussions concerning the compensation. The sum of N6 million was eventually paid, comprising approximately N5.6 million for compensation and N400,000 for resettlement. The appellants later alleged that their solicitors had, without proper authority, waived the outstanding balance of N13.29 million and accepted the payment as final compensation.

The appellants brought earlier proceedings in the Niger State High Court, including Suit No. NSHC/MN/47/89, in which issues concerning the compensation, the authority of Summit Chambers and the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Land Use Act were considered. A further proceeding, Suit No. NSHC/MN/160M/92, sought an order of mandamus compelling the Land Use and Allocation Committee to determine the compensation. Both matters were dismissed or disposed of by decisions declining jurisdiction, and no appeals were lodged against those decisions. The appellants subsequently commenced Suit No. NSHC/MN/57M/93, seeking declarations that they had not authorised the waiver, payment of the alleged balance and a reference of the compensation dispute to the Land Use and Allocation Committee.

The defendants raised preliminary objections based on res judicata, limitation and abuse of court process. The trial court upheld the objection and declined jurisdiction over the suit. The Court of Appeal affirmed that decision, holding that the previous proceedings had finally determined the relevant issues and that the trial court’s view that it could hear part of the claim had been reached per incuriam.

Issues

1. Whether the competence of the High Court and the Land Use and Allocation Committee to determine the appellants’ claims had already been adjudicated upon in the two earlier suits.
2. Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the trial court’s decision that it had jurisdiction to determine the first relief was made per incuriam.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that estoppel per rem judicatam, or estoppel by record, arises where an issue has been finally determined between the same parties or their privies by a court of competent jurisdiction and the same issue is subsequently raised. The doctrine includes cause-of-action estoppel and issue estoppel. Cause-of-action estoppel prevents a party from bringing a fresh action on the same cause, while issue estoppel prevents the relitigation of an issue already distinctly determined.

For the plea to succeed, the party relying on it must establish: identity of the parties or their privies; identity of the claim or issues; identity of the subject matter; a valid, subsisting and final decision; and a decision given by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court may examine the pleadings, proceedings and judgments in the earlier actions to determine whether those requirements are satisfied. The doctrine operates not merely as a defence but also against the jurisdiction of the court, preventing it from entertaining the same cause or issues again.

The Court held that the earlier decisions were final for the purpose of res judicata even though the courts had declined jurisdiction and the decisions were summary in nature. The parties, subject matter and issues were substantially the same in all three proceedings. The central question throughout was the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land. Interwoven with that question were the authority given to Summit Chambers, the amount collected by the solicitors and whether they had authority to waive the balance. Since these matters had been considered in the earlier proceedings, the appellants could not reopen them by filing another action.

On the meaning of per incuriam, the Court explained that the phrase means “through inadvertence.” A decision is per incuriam only where a court has failed to consider an applicable statute, a rule having statutory effect or a binding authority, and that omission made the reasoning faulty or could have affected the result. The trial court had recognised that it possessed jurisdiction over one relief but not the other reliefs, yet ultimately declined jurisdiction over the entire suit. The Supreme Court found this reasoning contradictory because the court had failed to give proper effect to the previous final decisions and the doctrine of res judicata.

Court Findings

The Court further observed that section 30 of the Land Use Act requires a dispute concerning the payment of compensation for acquired land to be referred to the Land Use and Allocation Committee. Government acquisition of land without adequate compensation was described as improper. The Court noted the substantial disparity between the university’s valuation of N18.89 million and the N6 million ultimately paid to the rural communities.

The judgment also strongly criticised Summit Chambers. The solicitors had been retained to take all necessary steps to recover the compensation due to the communities, but appeared to have accepted a substantially lower sum without adequately protecting their clients’ interests. The Court was particularly concerned that counsel present at the meeting did not effectively protest the proposed settlement and that Summit Chambers later appeared for the university, previously the opposing party. The conduct was considered inconsistent with professional ethics and deserving of investigation. Rhodes-Vivour JSC added that a dissatisfied client may withdraw a brief and may sue counsel for professional negligence where appropriate.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the two earlier judgments constituted res judicata in respect of the later action. The appeal was dismissed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed and no order as to costs was made.

Significance

The decision reinforces the finality of litigation in Nigerian civil procedure. A party cannot avoid the operation of res judicata merely because an earlier case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, provided the decision was final, the court was competent to make it and the required identities of parties, issues and subject matter are established. The case also highlights the statutory role of the Land Use and Allocation Committee in compensation disputes and the professional responsibilities of counsel representing vulnerable landowners.