GABRIEL MADUKOLU & OTHERS V JOHNSON NKEMDILIM (1962) JELR 40917 (SC)

INTRODUCTION

The case of Madukolu v Nkemdilim[1] is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Nigeria, with respect to the doctrine of Res Judicata and the issue of Jurisdiction. The case was brought before Vahe Bairamian F.J., Sir Lionel Brett F.J., and John Idowu Conrad Taylor F.J. This case is relevant when it comes to the doctrine of res judicata and the matter of jurisdiction.  

FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiff instituted an action before the Native Court of Mbatechete, where he claimed yams, etc. as customary rent for a lease term of thirteen (13) years which the plaintiff’s family gave to the defendant in 1942 for the purposes of building, alleging that the defendant had paid the rent for two years before he stopped paying altogether, to which the defendant did not admit the claim. During the tendering of evidence, the plaintiff gave evidence with respect to the allegation that the plaintiff’s family had leased the family property o the defendant, and that the defendant gave palm wine and the rent was agreed upon between the plaintiff’s family and the defendant. However, the defendant ceased paying the agreed rent after the first year of the lease. Judgement was entered for the plaintiff by the court of first instance that the plaintiff’s family was the owner of the land in dispute, and on this fact also, judgment for payment of rent was entered against the defendant.

On appeal, the Senior Administrative Officer of the County Court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove title to the land in dispute where the defendant had built his house on, therefore the judgment of the Native Court was set aside, and was confirmed by the Deputy Governor on the 23^rd day of January, 1957. After a year had passed, the plaintiff, for himself and on behalf of his family, instituted at the Native Court an action against the defendant, the same defendant as in the previous case for a declaration of title to a parcel of land known as “Aniuno-Isigwu”. Again, the defendant denied the claim, and whilst he tendered evidence, he put forward to the plaintiff that the case was res judicata.

The Native Court did not address the issue of res judicata raised by the defendant, and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The court held that the first case instituted bey the plaintiff was for payment of rent and not not for declaration of title, and to that extent of the former the judgment of the appellate court in the first case was valid. However, with respect to the declaration of title, it was ultra vires. It entered judgment for the plaintiff which was upheld by the Magistrate, but reversed by the High Court.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether title to land was a fact directly in issue in the previous cases between the parties;
2. Whether the title was actually decided by the court;
3. Whether the title appears from the judgment itself to be the ground on which it was based.

AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED

On the plaintiff’s behalf, counsel relied on the following authorities:

1. Spencer Bower on Res Judicata (which the court did not find in its library)
2. Halsbury’s Laws of England (2^nd Ed,) vol. 13, paragraphs 466 and 488
3. Commissioner of Lands v Abraham and Others[2] (the case differed from the case before the court)
4. Moss v Anglo-Eyptian Navigation Co.[3]
5. Dedeke and Others v Williams and Another[4] (court held not relevant in the case before it)

On the other hand, counsel to the defendant relied on the case of Bell v Holmes[5].

COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS

The court’s reasoning derived from the principle of jurisdiction, albeit the parties did not raise the matter of jurisdiction. The court, per Vahe Bairamian F.J. stated that a court is competent when:

• it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and
• the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and
• the case comes before the court initiated by due process of law, and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.

With respect to res judicata, the court stated that there was a defect in procedure in the trial of the Native Court, as it had evidence of the witnesses in the first case read out, and heard the witnesses of the other sub-families alone, without hearing the evidence of the other family. On this ground, the hearing was not a nullity. Nonetheless, it would have been a nullity if it had failed to satisfy the condition in 3) above. The court acknowledged that this particular issue arose ex improvise, it was fully argued and cases were not cited in that respect.

JUDGMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI

The court ruled that “the rule of res judicata is derived from the maxim of nemo debet bis vexaripro eadem causa. It is the causa that matters; and a plaintiff cannot, by formulating a fresh claim, re-litigate the same causa. That is why section 53 of the Evidence Act does not speak of the claim, but of the facts directly in issue in the previous case.”[6] The appeal arising out of the High Court of the Eastern Region of the Onitsha Judicial Division dated the 23^rd day of November, 1959, was dismissed by the court with costs to the respondent, of which assessment will be made after the parties were heard. In the judgment delivered by Sir Lionel Brett F.J., it was held that if the order for the case to be opened a second time was a nullity, it would be on the basis of the decision of the court in Ude v Agu.[7]

However, a dissenting judgment was passed by John Idowu Conrad Taylor. F.J., to wit:

1. I now turn to the order of the District Officer, for if he acted in excess of the jurisdiction given him by the Native Courts Ordinance, if he had no power to make the order which he in fact made, then that order is a nullity, and no matter what happened subsequently in the Native Court, no matter what the parties may have agreed upon, the proceedings subsequent to the order are a nullity.
2. Was the order of the District Officer an order that the case should be reheard or was it an order sending the case back for certain witnesses to be heard? If it was the former, the order was perfectly valid; if the latter, it was invalid.

• I have set out above the Order made by the District Officer, a person versed in the English language, though perhaps not a member of the Legal profession, and I cannot convince myself that when one reads the whole of the Order as set out by me above, he meant anything other than, and was understood by the Court below as meaning anything other than what he said, i.e. that the case should be reopened, not retried in toto, but reopened so as to enable certain witnesses to be called. This order is in my view a nullity, with the result that the subsequent proceedings to this order are also a nullity.[8]

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

With regard to jurisdiction, the court outlined conditions to be met whenever the competency of a court to hear a certain matter is in issue. This is important because where any of the conditions precedent is lacking, the competency of the court in question is lacking, there it will be stripped of jurisdiction. These conditions are: proper constitution of the court i.e., the number of Judges or Justices; subject-matter jurisdiction, which entails that the cause of action must be one that the court has the authority to hear and determine; and that due process must be complied with, i.e., all conditions precedent must be followed to the letter. For example, pre-action notices, statutes of limitation, locus standi and so forth.

CONCLUSION

The case of Madukolu v Nkemdilim[9] set the path for ascertaining jurisdiction by parties so as to ensure that suits brought before courts are within the court’s jurisdiction, thereby ensuring the competence of that court in determining the suit. It is to be understood that this case is a locus classicus with respect to jurisdiction, but also with respect to res judicata to the effect that a case which has been litigated cannot be re-litigated with respect to issues raised and addressed. The impact of this decision is that it sets a precedent to be followed in other cases by inferior and superior courts of record, with respect to the doctrine of res judicata and the issue of jurisdiction.

REFERENCE(S):

[1] Infra

[2] 19 N.L.R3. 1

[3] (1865) 1 Ch. App. Cas

[4] 10 W.A.C.A. 164

[5] (1956) 3 All E.R., 449

[6] (1962) JELR 40917 (SC)

[7] (1961) ALL N.L.R. 65

[8] Supra

[9] Supra