The doctrine of res judicata prevents multiple suits on the same issue once it has been fully and finally resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction

 

Design by awas

Azem Morina v. Saman Weranjan Kasthurirathna & Tea Masters Ceylon (Pvt) Ltd

Supreme Court of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 

SC CHC Appeal 10/2015

Date Decided: 11th September 2024 

Court Below: Commercial High Court of Colombo, Case No. HC (Civil) 478/2011/MR

Facts: 

The Plaintiff-Appellant, Azem Morina, a foreign national from Kosovo, filed an action in the Commercial High Court against the Defendants-Respondents for recovery of funds related to an unsuccessful tea export transaction. The Plaintiff had transferred a sum of €37,960 to the 2^nd  Defendant’s bank account, but the Defendants failed to honor their obligation to export the tea. The Plaintiff sought to recover the amount with interest and claimed additional damages for the expenses incurred due to the failure of the commercial transaction.

 

Background of the Case

In this case, the Plaintiff-Appellant, Azem Morina, from Kosovo, initiated legal action against the Defendants-Respondents, Saman Weranjan Kasthurirathna and Tea Masters Ceylon (Pvt) Ltd. The dispute arose from an unsuccessful commercial transaction related to the export of tea. The Plaintiff had remitted €37,960 in three installments to the 2^nd  Defendant’s account but received no goods in return.

Morina alleged that the Defendants had defrauded him and unlawfully retained the funds. As a result, he filed a complaint with the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) of Sri Lanka, leading to the arrest of the 1st  Defendant. In subsequent criminal proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court in Fort, the 1^st  Defendant admitted his obligation to return the funds and agreed to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,475,374.89, which was the equivalent of €37,960 at the time. The amount was paid in open court, and the Plaintiff's Power of Attorney holder accepted it as a "full and final settlement."

However, nearly two years later, the Plaintiff initiated civil proceedings in the Commercial High Court, seeking additional damages, including interest on the principal sum and expenses related to the transaction's failure. The Commercial High Court dismissed the case, and the Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

Legal Issues

1. Whether the Plaintiff-Appellant could maintain a civil action after accepting a full and final settlement in criminal proceedings.

2. Whether the Defendants were liable to pay interest and damages beyond the original settlement.

3. Whether the doctrine of res judicata barred the Plaintiff-Appellant from pursuing further claims in the Commercial High Court.

4. Whether there was any legal basis to distinguish between criminal and civil proceedings arising from the same transaction.

Arguments by the Parties - Plaintiff-Appellant’s Arguments:

The Plaintiff-Appellant contended that the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court only addressed the recovery of the principal sum and did not cover interest or other damages related to the failed transaction. Therefore, he argued that initiating a separate civil action in the Commercial High Court was justified. He further asserted that the High Court Judge had erred in concluding that the settlement in the criminal case precluded further civil claims. The Appellant also emphasized that the High Court failed to adequately consider the uncontradicted evidence provided by the Plaintiff’s sole witness.

Defendants-Respondents’ Arguments:

The Defendants-Respondents maintained that the Plaintiff had already received the full and final settlement in the Magistrate's Court proceedings, where the 1st  Defendant acknowledged the debt and paid the equivalent of €37,960. They argued that the Plaintiff could not relitigate the matter in a different forum, especially after accepting the payment as a final settlement. The Defendants further contended that the civil action was barred by the principle of res judicata and that pursuing additional claims would amount to an abuse of judicial process.

Analysis of Precedents

The Court referred to several key precedents on the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel:

1. Arumpalam et al v Kandavanam (41 NLR 304) 

This case established the principle that the doctrine of res judicata prevents multiple suits on the same issue once it has been fully and finally resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.

2. Sockalingam Chetty v Kalimuttu Chetty (44 NLR 330) 

The Court reiterated that a judicial decision, whether explicit or implicit, constitutes a final determination on the issues at hand.

3. Karunaratna v Amarisa (66 NLR 567) 

This case outlined the essential elements of res judicata, including the requirement that the parties and the cause of action be identical in both sets of proceedings. It further affirmed that once a matter is adjudicated, it cannot be reopened in another forum.

Res judicata

The Court also noted that accepting a full and final settlement in criminal proceedings, which resulted in the release of the 1st  Defendant, precluded the Plaintiff-Appellant from seeking additional compensation in a civil forum. The ruling emphasized that res judicata and estoppel served to prevent repetitive claims, ensuring finality in legal proceedings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the Plaintiff-Appellant’s civil action was barred by the settlement reached in the Magistrate's Court. The Court found no basis to distinguish between the payment made in the criminal proceedings and the Plaintiff’s subsequent attempt to recover additional sums.

The Plaintiff-Appellant, having accepted full and final settlement through the Magistrate's Court proceedings, was estopped from initiating further civil proceedings to recover interest and other damages. The original decision of the Commercial High Court, dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim, is affirmed.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Commercial High Court was upheld. The Plaintiff-Appellant was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal.

Click here to view the full judgment.