Now, S.T. Hon in Law of Evidence in Nigeria at Page 1189 stated that Issue Estoppel arises when or where an issue has been previously determined and one the parties to the previous litigation now seeks to introduce such issue for determination again in a subsequent litigation. Reference was made to the Supreme Court case ADIGUN VS THE SECRETARY, IWO LOCAL GOVERNMENT (1999) 8 NWLR PART 613PAGE 30 PER BELGORE JSC (THEN CJN). According to this Learned Author, for the plea of Issue Estoppel to succeed, however, the following conditions must be fulfilled, namely: a. The Parties must be the same in the Previous as well as in the Present Proceeding; b. The same Question that was decided in the Previous Action must arise in the Present Action in respect of the same Subject Matter; and c. A Court of Competent Jurisdiction must have determined the issue in a Final Manner. He cited the case of OMNIA NIGERIA LIMITED VS DYKTRADE LIMITED (2007) ALL FWLR PART 94 PAGE 201, where also the Supreme Court had held that, a Party may be precluded from contending the contrary of any precise point which having once been distinctly put in issue, had been solemnly and with certainty determined against him. According to the Supreme Court, this is still the legal position even where the objects of the first and second actions are different, as a finding on a matter, which came directly in issue in the first action, provided it is embodied in a judicial decision that is final, is conclusive in the second action between the same parties and their privies. This principle, the Apex Court also held applies whether the point invoked in the earlier decision is one of fact or one of law or of mixed law and fact. It concluded that under all circumstances, the following conditions have to be satisfied before the doctrine can be applied: a. The Same Question or Subject-Matter was decided in both Proceedings; b. Parties or their Privies were the Same in both Proceedings; c. The Judicial Decision said to create the Estoppel was Final. The Learned Author further cited the case of OGBOGU VS UGWUEGBU (2003) FWLR PART 161 PAGE 1825, where the Supreme Court held that where a piece of evidence is caught by the Rule of Issue Estoppel, the Court ought to stop or disallow such evidence from being admitted. However, the Learned Author made no mention on the applicability of Issue Estoppel in relation to Nigerian Criminal Cases. Cross & Tapper on Evidence Twelfth Edition Page 92, in addition to the above stated that the Judicial Decision must be on the Merits. The Supreme Court in OSHOBOJA VS AMIDA (2009) 18 NWLR PART 1172 PAGE 188 AT PAGES, 204 209 PARAS E-H, PER MUKHTAR JSC explained the Latin Maxim, “nemo debet bis vexari, si constet curiae quod sit pro una et eadem causa”, to say that, “There is a well-established Principle of Law which applies both in Civil and Criminal Cases, that no Man or One shall or should be or ought to be vexed twice on the same ground or for one and the Same Cause of Action or the Same Issues. Further, this principle was rooted in Public Policy. See the cases of ARO VS FABOLUDE (1983) 1 SCNLR PAGE 58; OMOKHAFE VS ESEKHOMO (1993) 3 NWLR PART 309 PAGE 58; ADOMBA VS ODIESE (1990) 1 NWLR PART 125 PAGE 165; NKANU VS ONUN (1977) 5 SC PAGE 13; IYAJI VS EYIGEBE (1987) 3 NWLR PART 61 PAGE 523; FADIORA VS GBADEBO (1978) 3 SC PAGE 219;FIDELITAS SHIPPING CO., LTD VS V/O EXPORTCHLEB (1966) 1 QB PAGE 630 AT PAGE640; (1965) 2 ALL ER PAGE 4 AT PAGE 8, LORD DENNING M.R. This was clearly analyzed by STEYN J in the case of SPEEDLINK VANGUARD VS EUROPEAN GATEWAY (1987) QB PAGE 206; (1986) 3 ALL 20