Appeal the Judgment delivered. According to Learned Silk, PW3, Bamanga Bello, had told the Court that he testified before Liman J. and had given the same evidence. Further, PW1 had admitted under Cross-Examination that the act of the Defendant in disbursing the Funds was Official. It was therefore based on this same evidence that the Defendants were discharged and acquitted. According to Learned Silk, since the Finding of the Federal High Court, being a Competent Court of Jurisdiction had settled the question of Misappropriation and of whether the disbursement was an Official Act, it will constitute a Gross Abuse of the Judicial Process to re-open and seek to re-litigate the very same issue of Dishonest Misappropriation in the face of an Explicit Finding. Learned Silk further stated that the only difference in these two cases is that in this present case, it is additionally alleged that Funds in the Office of the Accountant General of Plateau State and the Plateau State Water Board, were Criminally Misappropriated by the Defendant. On this contention, Learned Silk cited the cases of APC VS PDP & ORS (2015) LPELR-24587 SC PG 116 PARAS B-D PER RHODES VIVOUR J.S.C.; AD VS FAYOSE (2004) CA, AFWLR PT 222 AT PG 1719 to submit that the Rule of Estoppel is a Rule of Evidence, and the matter which will found an Issue Estoppel, may be of law, fact, or mixed law and fact. Once a specific point has been distinctly put in issue and has been determined with certainty, the Court will not allow that issue to be re-litigated by the same or different parties. It precludes a Party to a Proceeding from making against the other Party, an assertion, whether of fact or of the legal consequences of facts, the correctness of which was an essential element in the previous cause of action or defence, in the previous proceedings, between the same parties or their predecessors-in-title, and upon which the Court made a finding. According to Learned Silk, the justification for these Principles is that there must be an end to litigation as captured in the Latin Maxim “Interest Reipublica Ut Sit Finis Litium”, and that no one should be twice vexed over the same issue. Learned Silk then set out the conditions for the application of Issue Estoppel by relying on the Case Law Authorities of IKENI VS EFAMO (2001) 10 NWLR PT 720 AT PG 1; AJIBOYE VS ISHOLA (2006) 13 NWLR PT 998 AT 628 PER ONNOGHEN JSC (AS HE THEN WAS) AT PARA C-E AND EZEKIEL ADEDAYO VS ALHAJI YAKUBU BABALOLA & ORS (1998) LPELR-85 SC PER OGWUEGBU JSC. Further, in the case of TIJANI IKOTUN VS OBA SAMSON OYEKANMI & ANOR (2008) LPELR-1485 (SC), (2008) 10 NWLR PT 1094 AT 100 PER CHUKWUMA-ENEH JSC, it was held that the Res, Parties and Claims in the Present Suit need not necessarily be the same as those in the Previous Proceedings. It was also immaterial whether the issue in the previous case involved a Criminal Proceeding and the present case is Civil. On this contention, he cited the cases of AMOS O. ARO VS SALAMI FABOLUDE (1983) LPELR-558 SC, ALL NLR AT 67 PER ANIOGOLU JSC AT PAGE 24 AT PARAS B-D RELYING ON THE CASE OF HUNTER VS CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST MIDLANDS POLICE (1981) 3 WLR AT 906. Learned Silk also relied on the cases of GEORGE VS FRN (2014) ALL FWLR PT 718, 879 AT 894 AT PARAS B-D; ZAKARI VS NIGERIAN ARMY COUNCIL (2015) LPELR-24721 SC; AGBITI VS NIGERIAN ARMY (2011) 4 NWLR PT 1236 AND DALHATU VS TURAKI (2003) 15 NWLR PT 843, 310 AT 349 PARAS D-F PER EDOZIE JSC; ADISA VS OYINWOLA (2000) and BRAITHWAITE VS SKYE BANK PLC (2012) LPELR-15532 SC, to submit that identical cases with the same or similar 16