Res judicata needs be openly defined in order to decide its scope and confines. First, it should be known that this principle give the impression of being firmly rooted both in the legislations of the member nations and in the Court of Justice case-law. Therefore in this respect, it must be understood that res judicata is closely linked to the principle of legal certainty. Simply put, res judicata means that an adjudicated matter cannot be re-litigated. It’s also important to note that the legal authority of a decision in principle is relative. Striking a balance between conflicting interests is the purpose for res Juris data. It assures an effective judicial system and averts the injustice of a perpetrator having to defend the same claim repeatedly. Conversely, it defends the accuser’s interest in having issues and claims wholly and justly litigated. Res judicata consequently prevents the infinite reconsideration of disputes leading to the stability of the law See the case of Klever v. Reid Bros. Express (1951) 154 Ohio St. 491, 96 NE.2d 781.
The concept of legal certainty constitutes the core of the law and, in a comparable manner may be considered as its raison d’etre. It forms an important portion of unwritten Community law. It’s important to note also that the principle of revocability of administrative acts makes up the first implied jurisprudential form of legal certainty in the European legal order. Comparative analysis is imperative as carried out in the Algeria case by the court and AG LaGrange. In SNUPAT, the court considered the principle of legal certainty as relative as its application required combination with the legality principle. It further argued that the prevalence of issues depended on the underlying circumstances of the case that is a comparison of public with private interests. Res judicata must also be balanced with community legality. The Court of Justice has advanced two unique lines of case-law in order to evaluate Community legality. First is the traditionalist and is firmly founded with respect of national procedural anatomy. The second line is rooted on the principle of supremacy and results in the amplification of the advanced approach boosting the full efficacy of community law. Therefore, it is the duty of inland courts to ascertain whether the bureaucratic rules envisioned to assure that the rights of an individuals from public law are safeguarded under national law, imitate the principles of equivalence and effectiveness See the case of Klever v. Reid Bros. Express (1951) 154 Ohio St. 491, 96 NE.2d 781.
When the Court decided Case C-173/03, Traghetti Del Mediterraneo SpA, in liquidation v. Repubblica italianain June 2006, it took the occasion to lay down some of the principles that were determined by Köbler. This case, as was in Köbler, was mainly geared towards striking a reasonable equilibrium between the preserving the freedom of the judiciary as well as the fundamental requirements of legislative certainty. In addition, the requirement of effective judicial preservation of the persons in the most unconcealed cases of violation of Community legislations those are attributable to the judiciary. The court, in its ruling form, recognizes that the understanding of provisions of law are part of the very heart of judicial activity because a court faced with contrary arguments must understand relevant legal rules pertaining to either community and or national legislation in order to solve such disputes. The Res judicata is always applied to an impending lawsuit if the subsequent factors can be established by the party asserting res judicata. The party must show that the final ruling of the case had been arrived at by a court having jurisdiction on the matter .The party affirming res judicata must demonstrate that the ruling in the final suit is definite as to the issues relating to the subsequent lawsuit.
Whenever conclusive and ultimate judicial judgments are concerned, in most cases, the Court will proclaim more weight to the tenets of liberation and legal certainty when leveling them with the fundamentals of Community legality as well as the effective judicial protections, than in the situations of sheer administrative verdicts that become final. The use of res judicata consequently results in the determination of cases for both plaintiff and the defendant hence resulting in judicial economy.
The Rejection of Evidence
In Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 308 S.W.3d 704 (Ky. 2010), Mr. Jenkins was accused on two major accounts; showering nude in presence of children and fraudulence.
The Supreme Court rejected the previous charges laid by the trial courts. After appeal, when Mr. Jenkins moved for the review, the court stated that the main reasons include; involvement of the children, mistrust in interview tapes and; insufficient evidence against the plaintiff. Therefore, the Supreme Court in contrary to the trial court ruling dropped down the charges. Their main reason was that the Subordinate court had erred in denial of the plaintiff qualified attempts. Since the testimony given by a forensic psychologist was inadmissible, the supreme thought it wise to reverse the previous ruling. Additionally, there was the lack of credibility in the child witness. At this point, the Supreme Court said that the role of the expert was quite opined. These were some of the reasons that led to the process of the rejection of the evidence, bearing in mind that the evidenced had been doctored..
However on fraudulence account the judge did not allow first hand witness and went ahead give the final ruling .the judge discretion was based on a number of acts though he did not give explanation to convince. The ruling was done and decided in another court in august 2009. Smith v. The Ben Paterson Co., 54 B. 104, 107 (R.I. 1907)
Abuse of Discretion
In the cases whereby ”abuse of discretion” is regarded as the basis of review, the appellate court in this matter should considerate and should not change the trial courts verdict, unless under situations where the act of option is unreasonable. Additionally it should not be done without solid ground. The will works well in exemplary matters that are truly flexible, for instance; in granting of time extension or continuance and in accumulation of evidence. In addition a trial court has the choice to either act or not in the discretionary issues given above. The court has totally no discretion on adherence of the law. Abuse of discretion exists in cases where the court’s decision is irrational and it’s categorically on no instance reasonable enough to obligate an error of law. This brings in the conclusion that abuse of discretion isn’t “greater” than the existing error of law. See the case of Klever v. Reid Bros. Express (1951) 154 Ohio St. 491, 96 NE.2d 781.
However, without affecting the outcome of its appeal, there is a proposition that a trial court may commit an error of law. Abuse of discretion is almost similar to avoidance to execute a sound, legal and reasonable discretion. In addition, it does not give the impression of an intentional ploy of bad faith or misconduct and neither is it a reflection of the judge
Groussot, X., & Minssen, T. (2007). Res judicata in the court of justice case-law. European Constitutional Law Review, 3(3), 385-417. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1574019607003859
Ohio the Supreme Court announces the law of the case in the syllabus. Cassidy v. Glossip (1967)12 Ohio St.2d 17, 231 NE.2d 64, syllabus paragraph 6. Paragraph 2 of the syllabus of the case of Klever v. Reid Bros. Express (1951) 154 Ohio St. 491, 96 NE.2d 781
Kentucky Supreme Court Reverses Ruling Involving Admissibility of Expert Witness and Interview Tapes in a Child Sexual Abuse Allegation. (2014, November 27). Retrieved from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: http://www.jaapl.org/content/40/1/143.full
Kornezov, A. (2014). RES JUDICATA OF NATIONAL JUDGMENTS INCOMPATIBLE WITH EU LAW: TIME FOR A MAJOR RETHINK? Common Market Law Review, 51(3), 809-842. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1543039056?accountid=1611