On the other hand, as will be clarified, the two proceedings revolve around a uniform set of facts, and the factions discussed in them are essentially identical, and therefore the possibility of applying the rule regarding "estoppel" in our case must be examined, against the background of the various criteria that were reviewed earlier and in accordance with the comparison between the factual findings in the judgment and the facts alleged in the present lawsuit.
It can be seen that there is no absolute identity between the parties to the two proceedings. The heirs of the deceased are the applicants for the execution of a deed in a proceeding conducted in the Magistrate's Court, and the defendants in the present proceeding; The application for the execution of a deed was filed against the plaintiff's shareholders (the plaintiff in the present proceeding), while the Rehovot Municipality, which is also a defendant in the present proceeding, was not a party to the deed claim at all.
However, there is a clear legal affinity between the plaintiff and her shareholders, who acted on her behalf during the relevant period, and two of them also filed affidavits of the main witness in the framework of the current proceeding, on behalf of the plaintiff.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the identity of the parties in both proceedings allows, in principle, to apply the principle of estoppel in our case (even if it does not apply to the Rehovot Municipality).
As stated, in the framework of the objection to the execution of a deed (Appendix B to the application), factual and legal arguments were made that almost completely overlap with the claims made in the lawsuit.
..................................................................................................................
These conclusions (and others) attest, first of all, to a factual identity between the companies discussed in the previous proceeding, and those that stand at the foundation of the present proceeding.
In my opinion, the parties were discussed and decided unequivocally and definitively, while determining positive factual findings, which are also relevant to the current proceeding.