ON RES JUDICATA The Defendant again contends that some aspects of the Plaintiffs claim are res judicata and thus prohibits the Court from entertaining same. The doctrine of res judicata simply states that once a matter/cause has been finally determined, it is not open to either party to re-open or re-litigate that same matter. A matter is said to be res judicata if it has already been adjudicated upon by a competent Court. This prevents it from being pursued further by the same parties. Res judicata precludes the continued litigation of same issues between the same parties. The matter cannot be raised again either in the same Court or in a different Court. In other words, for a plea of res judicata to be sustained, both the subject matter and parties must be the same. In the instant case, the Defendant is challenging the admissibility of the suit on the grounds that part of the claims of the Plaintiffs have already been decided upon by this Court in the case of Serap V. FRN. (2012) CCJELR (unreported). A comparative analysis of the instant case and SERAP supra, shows that though the claims are similar in nature, the reliefs sought are not the same. Particularly, the parties in both suits are not the same. The rule on res judicata is clear and unambiguous and therefore not applicable in this case. An argument on res judicata can only be upheld if it is established that the case brought before the court is essentially the same as another which has been 20