STASSEN EXPORTS LTD. V. LIPTON LTD. AND ANOTHER

STASSEN EXPORTS LTD. V. LIPTON LTD. AND ANOTHER

SUPREME COURT
DR. SHIRANI A. BANDARANAYAKE,J.,
MARSOOF, P. C., J. AND
BALAPATABENDI, J.
S. C. (CHC) APPEAL NO. 51/2006
S.C. L. A. APPLICATION NO. 57/2005
H. C. (CIVIL) NO. 8/2003(3)
NOVEMBER 13TH, 2008
NOVEMBER 27TH,2008

Doctrine of res judicata - Applicability of the doctrine to a person who is not a party before the Court - State decisis - Legal Maxims - Interest reipublicae uts sit finis litium and nemo debet bis vexari pro unaet eadem causa - Judicial precedent - Estoppel - Code of Intellectual Property Act.

The High Court of the Western Province holden in Colombo and exercising, civil jurisdiction by judgment dated 20.07.2005 affinned the order of the . Assistant Director of Intellectual Property for and on behalf of the Director of Intellectual Property (2nd respondent) and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant. The appellant filed an application to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court and leave to appeal was granted on the following questions.

1. Should the Director - General have taken into consideration the judgment of the District Court in D. C. Colombo Case No. 2765 / Spl. and of the Court of Appeal in the appeal there from in determining whether the propounded mark should be registered or not?

2. Were the said judgments binding on the Director-General?

3. Were the said judgments final as between the parties on the question whether the use of the propounded mark was an act of unfair competition? If so, does the failure of the Director-General to consider the said judgments vitiate the order?

4. Was the Director-General entitled in law to independently arrive at the conclusion whether the propounded mark should be registered or not in terms of the applicable law without reference to the said judgments?

The learned High Court Judge had taken the position that since the 2nd respondent was not a party to the matter before the District Court and the Court of Appeal, the doctrine of res judicata would not be applicable and the 2nd respondent was free to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Held:

(1) Where a final judicial decision has been pronounced by a Court which had jurisdiction over the issue before it, any party to such litigation as against the other party would be estopped from disputing such decision on the merits whether it be used as the foundation of an action or as bar to any claim.

(2) The doctrine of res judicata has found justification in two fundamental principles. The first principle, which is public in nature, is based on the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (in the interest of the state that there be an end to litigation) and the second, on the footing of a maxim, private in nature, nerno debet bis oexaripro una et eadem causa (that no person should be proceeded against twice for the same cause).

(3) The decision of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the District Court would act as a bar against the respondents in claiming that the 2ndrespondent had the authority to hear and determine the matter that had been already decided by a higher Court.

(4) Judicial precedent, which is part of the law of this country, is to be applied not only to Courts but also to other Tribunals and Authorities, which have the power to make orders affecting the rights of other parties.

(5) As the dispute between the appellant and the 1.1 respondent was fully decided before the Court of Appeal on the identical questions, which later came up before the 2nd respondent, the latter was bound by the decision given by the District Court and the Court of Appeal and there was no possibility or a necessity for the 2nd respondent to have been a party before the District Court or the Court of Appeal

(6) As the plea of res judicata by way of estoppel was raised by the appellant, the latter would have to show that the parties to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document