The following judgments were delivered :-
SAWREY-COOKSON, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment by Michelin, J. by which he held on the preliminary issue then before him by consent of counsel (Mr. Idun for plaintiff and Mr. Asafu-Adjaye for defendant),
that the action was" res judicata." .
The facts are so fully set out in that judgment that I do not think it necessary to go over them again beyond mentioning that Mr. Asafu-Adjaye relied on two judgments, one by a Native Tribunal in the case of Aboagye v. Nkansa in 1908, and the other by Sir Brandford Griffith, C.J. sitting' in the Divisional Court, Accra, in the case of Coker v. Nmate in 1909, the Coker in that cas~ being the! defendant in this case.
This action was for trespass by defendant on the plaintiff's land, and its hearing was to have commenced" de novo" if the learned Judge found that the matter was not "res judicata" according to the definition of what estoppel amounts to as given in Spencer Bower (and elsewhere). This will be found at the bottom of page 62 and on top of page 63 in the reeord of appeal.
At page 63 (ibidem) the learned Judge proceeds to consider the definition of privies as referred to in that definition of estoppel, a privy being any such person who succeeds to the rights or liabilities of one of the parties to a suit or who is otherwise identified with him in estate or interest, and the learned Judge then went on Yode Kwao to show that, although persons may be distinct in name, yet if their Kwasi Coker title and interest are substantially identical, they are in law considered. as one and the same party for the purpose of estoppel by res Judtcata.
Now so far as the law on this subject goes, neither Mr. Idun nor Mr. Bejamin who was with him in this appeal have anything to say, but they contend that the judgment af Sir Brandford Griffith in Coker v. Nmate cannot be binding or conclusive as against Yode Kwao (the present plaintiff) simply because he bought the land on which he alleges Coker trespassed long before Coker bought it, and reliance is placed on the case Mercantile Investment etc. Co. v. River Plate Trust Co. (1894) 1 Ch. 578. But it seems to me that both counsel have overlooked the fact that the learned tri~ Judge was in entire agreement with them on this point, for he states in his judgment towards the bottom of page 63 of the record that were it not for this very fact, i.e. the fact that Yode Kwao did actually purchase the land now in dispute before the date of S
