is excluded in the action in which that Judgment is intended to be proved. He cited the cases of MAKUN VS FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, MINNA (2011), 2 NWLR PT. 1050 PER GALADIMA JSC; OLORIEGBE VS OMOTESHO (1993) 1 NWLR PT 270 AT 386; AGBOGUNLERI VS DEPO (2008) ALL FWLR PT. 408 AT 240 AT 261; BALOGUN VS ODE (2009) ALL FWLR PT 358, 1050 AT 1065-1066. Further, Learned Silk for the Prosecution submitted that the Offences for which the Defendants were charged before the Federal High Court, Kaduna were State Offences for which the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon. In support of this contention, he cited the cases of EHINDERO VS FRN (2014) 10 NWLR PT 1415 AT 281; THE STATE VS WILLIAMS (1978) NSCC 38 AT 44; ABBAS VS COP (1998) 12 NWLR PT 577, 308 AT 318 AND FRN VS NWOSU (2016) 17 NWLR PT 1541, 226 AT 291 C-F, PER MUHAMMAD JSC. In this case at hand, the Offence of Criminal Misappropriation under Section 308 as contained in Exhibit D21B are not matters listed under Section 251 (1) of the Constitution in respect of which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to entertain, and any pronouncement made by it on those Offences cannot ground a Plea of Issue Estoppel at all. Therefore in all, Learned Silk concluded that the contention of the Defence on Issue Estoppel does not represent the Position of the Law. In Reply on Points of Law, Learned Silk representing the Defendant submitted that the Judgment of Liman J., in Exhibit D21B, having not been set aside on Appeal, is valid, subsisting and binding, operating to estop this Court from coming to any conclusion other than that, the Funds forming the subject matter on Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21 and 23 were not misappropriated. He argued the point that it was not within the Jurisdictional Competence of this Court, to declare the Judgment in Exhibit D21B, of the Federal High Court, a Court of Competent Jurisdiction, as having been reached without Jurisdiction. The effect of the Prosecution’s invitation to this Court to make a finding that another Court of concurrent or co-ordinate jurisdiction had no jurisdiction, is that this Court should sit on Appeal over that Judgment, which practice the Apex Court berates and deprecates, citing the cases of AKPORUE & ORS VS OKEI & ORS (1973), 8 NSCC AT 649 AT 654 and ONWUKA VS MADUKE (1998) 4 NWLR PT547 AT 344 AT 353. Further, he submitted that the Law is trite that Issue Estoppel does in fact apply to both Civil and Criminal Proceedings and cited the Supreme Court Case of ARO VS SALAMI FABOLUDE (1983) LPELR-558; ALL NLR 67, PAGES 8-9, PARAS G-F PER ANIAGOLU JSC, for which the Prosecution had not referred this Court to any divergent Nigerian Case Law Authority emanating from the Appellate Courts, and in fact, none exists. Therefore, the Apex Court’s Decision remained extant and subsisting and he urged the Court to reject the persuasive decisions of the English Courts in preference to the Decisions of our Supreme Court. Apart from that, Kanu Agabi SAN submitted that Parties in the Previous Proceedings need not be the same as those in the Present Case for the defence of Issue Estoppel to be proved, and unlike Res Judicata, it is immaterial that at the time of the Trial of that Case, the Defendant enjoyed Immunity from prosecution. He cited the case of TIJANI IKOTUN VS OBA SAMSON OYEKANNI & ANOR (2008) LPELR-1485 SC PER CHUKWUMAH-ENEH JSC, to argue as immaterial that the Present Defendant enjoyed Constitutional Immunity at the time of the Federal High Court Trial in FHC/KD/144C/2004. According to him, Section 173 of the Evidence Act relied on by the Prosecution deals with Res Judicata and not Issue Estoppel. 19