Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

MEANING OF PRIVY

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Dictum

Who then is a privy to a party to a suit pending in a Court of law, and who even without being formally joined as a party to the suit would in law be bound by the result, the judgment, of the Court in such a suit? A “Privy” has been defined so succinctly as “A person who is in privity with another. One who is a partaker or has any part or interest in any action or matter or thing. In connection with the doctrine of Res Judicata, one who after the commencement of the action has acquired interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment though or under one of the parties as by inheritance, succession, purchase or assignment.” See Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition @ p. 1200. See also 30 Daniel V. Kadiri (Supra); Chief Oyelakin Balogun V Pastor Moses Afolayan (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 85) 331 @ p. 334; Kola Adedeji & Anor V. Otunba Segun Adebayo & Ors. (2012) LPELR 7990 (CA).

— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. General Telephone v. Asset (2017) – CA/L/336/2015

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

PRIVIES ARE OF THREE CLASSES

Now, the judgment of a Court binds not only the parties but also all those who come within the legal ambit of privies to the parties on the record. In law, privies are of three classes, namely: a. Privies in blood b. Privies in law c. Privies in Estate. See Vol. 15 Halsbury Laws of England, 3rd Edition @ P. 196 Article 372. See also Coker v. Sanyaolu (1976) 10 NSCC 566 @ p. 573 per Idigbe JSC. See also Adone v. Ikebudu (2001) 7 SCNJ 513 @ p.534; Abubakar v. B. O. & A. P Ltd (2007) 18 NWLR (pt. 1060) 319; Agbogunleri v. Depo (2008) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1074) 217; Daniel V. Kadiri & Anor (2010) LPELR – 4017 (CA).

— B.A. Georgewill, JCA. General Telephone v. Asset (2017) – CA/L/336/2015

Was this dictum helpful?

BELONGING TO SAME POLITICAL PARTY IS NOT PRIVITY THAT CAN BAR SUBSEQUENT SUIT

It necessarily has to be so because, except where a person is shown to be privy of another as recognised by law, no man can be punished for the actions or sins of another. That is the crux of the issue here. It is whether the Petitioners, Alhaji Abubakar Atiku and his Political Party, the Peoples’ Democratic Party, can be properly described as privies of the Governments of Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo and Sokoto States who undisputedly instituted Suit No SC/CV/354/2023 against the Attorney General of the Federation before the Supreme Court of Nigeria. That question can only get a negative response, for the Government of a State, regardless of the political party platform on which its Executive Governor is or was elected, represents all shades of opinion in the State, including even those who may not belong to any political party at all. In fact, a State Government is not even bound nor obliged to take instructions from the political party of the Governor. Interestingly, our Law Reports are also replete with cases where State Governments elected on the same political party platform with the Federal Government have repeatedly sued the Federal Government at the Supreme Court. A good example is the recent New Currency Change case that was instituted by the Attorneys General of Kogi, Kaduna and Zamfara States against the Federal Government, even as both parties were APC Governments. In that situation, one wonders where counsel would place this proposition of privity by affinity.

— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. Atiku v PDP (CA/PEPC/05/2023, 6th of September, 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry

Facebook Twitter Whatsapp Telegram

Humongouz Empire

© 2025

designed by Humongouz Ztudio. 

TO – 2531 | UO – 2 | GO – 2363 | BO – 166

External link(s)

BOOK: First 2-years as a Law Student: Experiences and Lessons.