<p style="text-align: center"><strong><u>JUDGMENT</u></strong></p><p style="text-align: justify"><strong><u>ADJEI-FRIMPONG JSC:</u></strong></p><p style="text-align: justify">The extent to which a judgment constitutes a bar to further litigation involving the same cause of action or the same issues continues to give rise to vexed questions in common law jurisdictions. The perennial conundrum gave cause to a statement attributed to Somervell L.J which is cited by Sir Raymond Evershed M.R. in the case of <strong>REMNANT V. SAVOY ESTATE LTD (1949)2 ALL ER 286 at 289</strong> thus: <em>“…res judicata may work in mysterious ways and that may be the effect of the application of the doctrine.”</em> Such is the mystery that has emerged from the facts of this case which is now on a second appeal before us. </p><p style="text-align: justify">The issue which is not of any wide compass turns on whether the hallowed principle of estoppel per rem judicatam in its species and variants, operated against the Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant (herein ‘the Plaintiff’) such as to bar him from pursuing the remedies he sought in the instant suit against the Defendant/Respondent/Respondent (herein ‘the Defendant’). </p><p style="text-align: justify">…</p>