REV. FATHER FRANCIS IDOWU & ORS v. MRS SHIYANBOLA FOLORUNSO & ORS
(2019)LCN/12583(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 25th day of January, 2019
CA/IB/279/2012
RATIO
JURISDICTION: AT WHAT STAGE CAN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION BE RAISED
“The issue of jurisdiction of a Court being a very fundamental issue, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings of the Court by either the parties to a suit or by the Court suo moto. Accordingly, where there are sufficient facts on the record of Court like in this instant case, which establish lack of jurisdiction, the Court is bound to raise it suo motu and call on the parties to address the Court. But in this instant case, the issue was raised by the Respondents/Appellants ab initio. The learned trial Judge was in error when he closed his eyes and proceeded with the matter in the absence of jurisdiction. It can never be too late to determine the issue of jurisdiction. It is always in the interest of justice to raise the issue of jurisdiction so as to save time and cost and to avoid a trial in nullity. See Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR p. 137 (SC); Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 229) 350 and Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 84) 508.” PER ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.
JURISDICTION: WHAT DETERMINES JURISDICTION
“The above findings of the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted. In so many cases the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court is to be determined by the Plaintiffs statement of claim. In fundamental rights application jurisdiction is determined by the reliefs claimed before the Court. See Olisa Agbakoba v. Director of SSS (1994) 6 NWLR (pt. 351) 475, British Airways Plc v. Amadi (2012) 2 NWLR (pt. 21) (CA); Adetayo v. Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (pt. 215) 169 and Tukur v. Govt of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt. 117) 517.
And where the alleged wrong or infringement occurred in more than one State, any High Court in either or any of the States has jurisdiction to entertain the action. See Uzoukwu & Ors v. Uzeonu 11 (1991) 6 NWLR (pt. 200) 708 (CA).” PER ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
NONYEREM OKORONKWO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. REV. FATHER FRANCIS IDOWU
2. REV. FATHER PIUS ODDIRAN
3. MR. PATRICK OSUNKO Appellant(s)
AND
1. MRS SHIYANBOLA FOLORUNSO
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OSUN STATE POLICE COMMAND OSOGBO
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE STATE C.I.D. OSOGBO
4. INSPECTOR AKPAN
5. WOMAN POLICE ROSE Respondent(s)
ABUBAKAR MAHMUD TALBA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment):
This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court of Oyo State Ibadan Judicial Division, delivered by Hon. Justice O.A. Boade on the 25th June 2012. The 1st Respondent in this appeal instituted an action before the lower Court under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act 2004, claiming Six (6) Reliefs as follows:
1. A declaration that the abduction, arrest, detention torture, harassment, intimidation and further threat to incarcerate the Applicant by the 3rd & 5th Respondents at the direction and behest of the 6th & 8th Respondents on a matter that borders on joint business transaction is illegal and unconstitutional as it violates the Applicant’s Fundamental Rights to freedom of movement, freedom of personal liberty.
2. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents whether by themselves, their agents, privies and servants from further intimidation, harassment, torture or abducting the Applicant on any issues connected with this application.
3. An Order of this Honourable Court binding over the Respondents from using the machinery of the Nigeria Police to further incarcerate, torture, intimidate, harass and or interfere with the applicant’s right to personal liberty, freedom from movement, dignity of her person and freedom from all forms of degrading and inhuman treatment.
4. An Order of this Honourable Court awarding the sum of N50,000,000:00 to the Applicant as compensation for infringement of her fundamental Human Right to personal liberty, freedom of movement, freedom from torture, and other forms of inhuman treatment pursuant to Sections 46 (1); 35(1) 34 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999, as amended as Articles 5, 6, 14, 18(3) and 28 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
5. Perpetual Injunction restraining the Respondents by themselves, agents, privies and anyone acting for them from further abduction, harassment, intimidation, torture and invasion of the Applicant’s family home and place of work or her residence by the Respondents on matter connected with this application.
6. An Order of this honourable Court directing and compelling the 4th and 5th Respondents to refund to the Applicant the sum of N20,000:00 (Twenty Thousand Naira) being bail money forcefully extorted from the Applicant before she could regain her freedom from the custody of the 4th and 5th Respondents.
The suit was instituted against the 2nd-5th Respondents in this appeal and the 6th-8th Respondents, who are now the Appellants. The 1st Respondent, before the lower Court i.e the Inspector General of Police was struck out of the suit on the application of the Applicant/1st Respondent. See page 18 of the records.
The 6th-8th Respondents/Appellants filed a counter affidavit and a notice of preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the lower Court. See pages 57-64 and 49-50 of the records. The applicant/1st Respondent filed a reply to the 6th – 8th Respondents/Appellants counter affidavit. See pages 77-88 of the records. In compliance with Order VIII Rules 1 and 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, the Preliminary Objection was argued in the 6th-8th Respondents/Appellants counsel address. After the adoption of written address on both sides, the learned trial Judge dismissed the preliminary objection and granted the applicant/1st Respondent?s claims in part. Reliefs 1, 2, 4 and 5 were granted while reliefs 3 and 6 were refused. The Ruling is on pages 103-117 of the records. Appellants being dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court, they filed a notice of appeal on 10th August, 2012.
The notice of appeal contains seven (7) grounds of appeal as follows:
Grounds of Appeal
1. The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the High Court of Oyo State has jurisdiction to entertain this application and deciding the application:
Particulars:
i. Applicant/Respondent in the final analysis was not able to prove any of the arrest or abduction she alleged to have taken place in Ibadan Oyo State on which the Court assumed jurisdiction.
ii. The learned trial Judge believed and accepted the Respondents/Appellants case that the Applicant/Respondent voluntarily reported herself at the S.C.I.D, Osogbo, accompanied by her lawyer on 14th November, 2011.
iii. The ‘undertaking’ on which the learned trial Judge eventually based his decision was written at the S.C.I.D, Osogbo, a place outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
iv. When from all the facts before the Court has no jurisdiction.
2. The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the undertaking the Applicant/Respondent wrote to pay the money fraudulently obtained by her from the Respondents/Appellants back to the Respondents/Appellants was extracted from her and therefore unlawful.
Particulars:
i. Whereas the learned trial Judge also found and held that the Applicant/Respondent was not able to establish any inhuman treatment by the police which by the Applicant/Respondent’s affidavit was the basis on which she alleged that the undertaking was extracted from her.
ii. The holding ignored the overwhelming evidence in the Respondent/appellants counter-affidavit which showed that the Applicant/Respondent and her lawyer voluntarily wrote the undertaking to avoid prosecution for her fraudulent acts.
iii. There is nothing to show that the undertaking was extracted from the Applicant/Respondent, or that she was coerced or forced into writing it.
3. The learned trial Judge erred in law when he held that the police have no power to insist that the money should be refunded to the Respondents/Appellants through them (police) and that such act is an infringement of the fundamental right of the Applicant/Respondent.
Particulars:
i. When there is no credible proof of such ‘insistence’ by the police from the facts before the lower Court.
ii. When from the evidence before the Court, the Applicant\Respondent discussed with the police and willingly wrote the undertaking to refund the money.
iii. When from the wordings of the undertaking, the refund was not to be made through the police but directly to the Respondents/Appellants.
4. The learned trial Judge erred in his findings when he held as follows: ‘The 6th-8th Respondents as the complainants, could not be exonerated from this unlawful act of the 2nd-5th Respondents since they were acting as their agents in extracting the undertaking from the applicant with a view to get the applicant to pay the said sum of N200,000:00 to them’.
Particulars:
i. When there is no evidence before the Court to show that the Respondents/Appellants did more than just making a complaint of obtaining money by false pretence to the police against the Applicant/Respondent.
ii. There is no evidence that the Respondents/Appellants had any involvement in the writing of the undertaking.
iii. Whereas the police officers has found by the Court were carrying their lawful duty of investigating a criminal report.
iv. When there is no proof that the Respondents/Appellants engaged the police as agent to recover the money from the Applicant/Respondent.
v. When the preponderance of the evidence as found by the learned trial Judge is that the Applicant/Respondent willingly went to the police station with her counsel, entered into discussion with the police on how to repay the Respondents/Appellants money to avoid prosecution, and willingly wrote the undertaking.
vi. When in law the Respondents/Appellants are not liable for any action of the police in the course of their investigation.
5. The learned trial Judge erred in law in granting the declaratory and injunctive reliefs granted to the Applicant/Respondent in his ruling judgment.
Particulars:
i. When the grounds for seeking reliefs as contained in the Applicant/Respondent’s application and the affidavit in support i.e. unlawful arrest, abduction, detention and inhuman treatment, have being found not to be proved.
ii. When there is no evidence that the fundamental rights of the Applicant/Respondent as entrenched in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights has in any way being breached.
6. The learned trial Judge erred in law in awarding the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira (N100,000:00) to the Applicant/Respondent as compensation for infringement on her fundamental human right to personal liberty, freedom of movement, freedom from torture and other forms of inhuman treatment.
Particulars:
i. When there is no evidence before the Court that the Applicant/Respondent’s right to personal liberty, freedom of movement, freedom from torture were infringed upon, or that she suffered any form of inhuman treatment.
ii. When the learned trial Judge had earlier in the ruling found that the arrest (if any) of the Applicant/Respondent was justified, that she voluntarily reported at the S.C.I.D, Osogbo on 14th September, 2011 with her lawyer and left the same day after discussion with the police officers, and that she has not suffered any inhuman treatment.
7. The ruling/judgment is against the weight of affidavit evidence.
The reliefs now being sought are for this Court to make an order setting aside the Ruling of the lower Court and dismissing the case of the Applicant/Respondent.
On the 6th November, 2018 when the appeal came up for hearing, the third Appellant was in Court and M.O. Okediya announced appearance for the Appellants. The Respondents were not in Court and they were not represented. The Court Registrar informed the Court that the 1st Respondent’s counsel A. Oyorofo was in Court on 17th September, 2018 when the case was adjourned to 6th November, 2018. While the 2nd to 5th Respondents counsel were each served with a hearing notice on the 22nd day of October, 2018. The Appellant’s counsel Mr. I.O. Okediya informed the Court that the Respondents did not file their brief of argument. And on the 23rd day of April 2018 the matter was set down for hearing on the appellants brief alone. The record of appeal was transmitted on the 7th November, 2012 and it was deemed properly filed on 16th March, 2017.
The Appellants brief of argument dated 23rd January, 2013 was filed on the 25th January, 2013. It was deemed properly filed on 16th March, 2017. In the Appellants brief six (6) issues were distilled for determination as follows:
Issue One
Whether the learned trial Judge having believed the evidence that the Applicant/Respondent was not abducted or arrested in Ibadan Oyo State on the 14th November, 2011 as she alleged in her affidavit and the basis of her suit, but that she voluntarily reported herself at the S.C.I.D. Osogbo Osun State accompanied by her lawyer on 14th November, 2011, was right in holding that the High Court of Oyo State has jurisdiction over the matter, in dismissing the Appellants preliminary objection and deciding the application.
Issue Two
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the undertaking to pay money written by the Applicant/Respondent was extracted from her.
Issue Three
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in his decision that the police (Respondents/Respondents) insisted that the Applicant/Respondent should repay the Appellant’s money through them and that such act infringe on the rights of the Applicant/Respondent.
Issue Four
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in finding the Appellants liable for any action of the police (Respondents/Respondents) in this matter especially the writing of the undertaking by the Applicant/Respondent.
Issue Five
Whether the learned trial Judge was right in granting the reliefs granted to the Applicant/ Respondent.
Issues Six
Whether the decision of the learned trial Judge is not against the weight of affidavit evidence.
On issue one, the Appellants counsel argued and submitted that in an action for the enforcement of fundamental rights the appropriate Court that has jurisdiction over the matter is the High Court in the State where the infringement of the fundamental right is alleged to have occurred.
He referred to Section 46(1) of the 1999 (CFRN) as amended and Order II Rule 1(1) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. He also relied on the case of Tukur v. Gov. of Gongola State (2011) 9 SCM 155 at 184-185, 298, 213-214, 223 and 235.
Learned counsel submitted further that the Applicant/1st Respondent instituted the suit before the lower Court for the enforcement of her fundamental rights which she alleged was breached by the 2nd-5th Respondents on the direction of the 6th ? 8th Respondents/Appellants at Ibadan on the 14th November 2011, when she alleged that she was abducted, arrested and taken to the SCID, Osogbo where she was detained, tortured and humiliated etc.
The Appellants counsel submitted that the Appellants in their defence to this action inter-alia vehemently denied the allegation that the Applicant/Respondent was abducted or arrested on 14th November, 2011 or on any other date at Ibadan Oyo State. Rather the Applicant/Respondent voluntarily appeared in the company of her lawyer at the SCID Osogbo on 14th November, 2011 and she was not arrested or detained. After discussion with the
Respondents/Respondents and the Appellants and her undertaking to refund the Appellants money, she was allowed to go home same day.
The Appellants filed a notice of preliminary objection to challenge the jurisdiction of the lower Court on the ground that from the facts before the Court, no act against the fundamental rights of the Applicant/Respondent occurred in Ibadan Oyo State. The learned trial Judge in his Ruling dismissed the Appellants preliminary objection on the ground that it is the Applicants/Respondents deposition in her affidavit that she was abducted and arrested in Ibadan and taken to Osogbo that the Court will consider in determining jurisdiction. The learned counsel conceded that the learned trial Judge rightly stated that it is the claim of the Plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the Court. He submitted further that the basis of the Applicant/Respondent’s claim i.e. that she was abducted and arrested at Ibadan having been found not to be true, there is no further premise for the Court to continue exercising jurisdiction.
Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Judge disbelieved the allegation of the Applicant/Respondent that she was abducted and arrested at Ibadan and believed the Appellant’s evidence that she voluntarily appeared at the SCID Osogbo on 14th Nov., 2011 in the company of her lawyer. He referred to the findings of the learned trial Judge at page 116, paragraph 2 of the records as follows:
“The undertaking written by the Applicant attached to the counter affidavit as Exhibit DR2 was dated 14th November 2011 and was counter signed by her lawyer on the same day. It is therefore difficult to believe the averment of the Applicant that she was detained for 36 hours or 48 hours as she later deposed in paragraph 41(b) of her reply to the counter-affidavit. The version of the deposition of the 6th Respondent that the Applicant voluntarily reported herself at SCID Osogbo, accompanied by her lawyer on 14th November, 2011 at about 10am or 11am and after the discussions they had in the 3rd Respondent’s office they left at about 2.3 pm the same day is more credible and I believe it.”
The learned counsel submitted that with this finding the Court has confirmed that the Applicant/Respondent was not abducted or arrested at Ibadan on 14th November, 2011 or at any other day. As such, at that stage, the learned trial Judge ought to have declined further jurisdiction on the matter as the facts have shown that no act of breach of the fundamental rights of the Applicant/Respondent occurred in Ibadan.
The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Judge made a finding that the report made by the Appellants to the Respondents/Respondents that the Applicant/Respondent was out to defraud them was on reasonable grounds and therefore justified, hence the arrest of the Applicant/Respondent was justified. And that the Applicant/Respondent was never detained, tortured or given any inhuman treatment. See pages 115-117 of the records. The learned counsel finally submitted that the decision of the learned trial Judge was based on the undertaking written by the Applicant/Respondent of the SCID Osogbo office of the Respondents/Respondents on the 14th November, 2011, which the learned trial Judge viewed as having been extracted from the Applicant/Respondent. And that the police are not to act as debt collectors. See paragraph 3 of page 116 and paragraph 1 of page 117 of the records. On this note, the learned counsel submitted that the alleged acts of police acting as debt collectors and the extraction of the undertaking occurred at SCID, Osogbo office of the Respondents/Respondents a place in Osun State outside the jurisdiction of Oyo State High Court. And that the learned trial Judge acted without jurisdiction. He urged the Court to allow the appeal on this ground and to set aside the decision.
The issue of jurisdiction of a Court is a radical and crucial issue of competence. Jurisdiction is very fundamental. It is the live wire of a case which should be determined at the earliest opportunity. If a Court has no jurisdiction to determine a case, the proceedings remain a nullity ab initio no matter how well conducted and decided. See Goldmark (Nig) Ltd v. Ibafon Co. Ltd (2012) 10 NWLR (pt. 291); Trade Bank Plc v. Benilux (Nig) Ltd (2003) 9 NWLR (pt. 825) 416; Onuorah v. K.R.P.C. Ltd (2005) 6 NWLR (pt. 921) 393. Where there is a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court must first assume jurisdiction to consider whether it has or lacks jurisdiction. In other words, it is a question of law and once raised it should be resolved quickly. See Goldmark (Nig.) Ltd v. Ibafon Co. Ltd (supra) and Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR p. 137.
The learned trial Judge was right when he determined the preliminary objection which challenges the jurisdiction of the Court. The learned trial Judge rightly stated the position of the law in determining the issue of jurisdiction of the Court.
He stated that:
“The Court should consider the writ of summons and the statement of claim only not the defence. It is the claim of the Plaintiff in the instant case, the Applicant that determines the jurisdiction of the Court and not the defence put up by the defendant or the Respondents.”
The learned trial Judge relied on the cases of Oba J.A. Aremo v. Adekanye & Ors (2004) 7 SCNJ 218 at 231 and Adeyemi v. Opeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31. The learned trial Judge on this premise went on to hold as follows:
‘But in an application of this nature, the Court should consider the reliefs and the affidavit in support of the application only. The counter-affidavit of the Respondent has no relevance and cannot be considered to determine the issue of jurisdiction.
‘If that is the position of the law, then it is the Applicant’s deposition that she was abducted and arrested in Ibadan and taken to Osogbo where she was detained that the Court has to consider and not that of the Respondents to the contrary. Since the alleged infringement of the fundamental rights of the Applicant started in Ibadan and continued in Osogbo then the Applicant can properly bring this application either in Ibadan or Osogbo. Where two States High Courts have jurisdiction over a matter any of the High Courts of such two states can exercise the jurisdiction. In the circumstance, the High Court of Oyo State has jurisdiction to entertain this application. The preliminary objection has no merit and it is hereby dismissed.’
The above findings of the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted. In so many cases the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court is to be determined by the Plaintiffs statement of claim. In fundamental rights application jurisdiction is determined by the reliefs claimed before the Court. See Olisa Agbakoba v. Director of SSS (1994) 6 NWLR (pt. 351) 475, British Airways Plc v. Amadi (2012) 2 NWLR (pt. 21) (CA); Adetayo v. Ademola (2010) 15 NWLR (pt. 215) 169 and Tukur v. Govt of Gongola State (1989) 4 NWLR (pt. 117) 517.
And where the alleged wrong or infringement occurred in more than one State, any High Court in either or any of the States has jurisdiction to entertain the action. See Uzoukwu & Ors v. Uzeonu 11 (1991) 6 NWLR (pt. 200) 708 (CA).
Now when the learned trial Judge dismissed the preliminary objection, he assumed jurisdiction to determine the substantive matter. In the course of determining the substantive matter the learned trial Judge found that the Applicant voluntarily reported herself at SCID Osogbo, accompanied by her lawyer on 14th November, 2011 at about 10:00am or 11:00am. That means that the Applicant/Respondent was never abducted or arrested in Ibadan and taken to Osogbo. In other words, there was no any act of breach of the fundamental rights of the Applicant/Respondent that occurred in Ibadan.
At this stage, the learned trial Judge should have pulled an automatic brake and declined jurisdiction. But the learned trial Judge went ahead and he made the following findings at page 117 of the records:
‘Having carefully considered the affidavit evidence, the submissions of counsel on the application, the nature of the complaint of the 6th-8th Respondents to the police against the applicant, which is criminal in nature and the act of the applicant which led to her arrest by the police. I hold that her arrest if any was justified. But extracting undertaking from the applicant and the role played by the police in acting as debt collector for the 6th-8th Respondents are not lawful and the Respondents are liable. I will award the sum of N100,000:00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) to the Applicant as general damages.’
It is crystal clear that the extraction of the undertaking from the Applicant/Respondent was done at Osogbo SCID office in Osun State. It is without any doubt that Osogbo Osun State is outside the territorial jurisdiction of Oyo State High Court.
The issue of jurisdiction of a Court being a very fundamental issue, it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings of the Court by either the parties to a suit or by the Court suo moto. Accordingly, where there are sufficient facts on the record of Court like in this instant case, which establish lack of jurisdiction, the Court is bound to raise it suo motu and call on the parties to address the Court. But in this instant case, the issue was raised by the Respondents/Appellants ab initio. The learned trial Judge was in error when he closed his eyes and proceeded with the matter in the absence of jurisdiction. It can never be too late to determine the issue of jurisdiction.
It is always in the interest of justice to raise the issue of jurisdiction so as to save time and cost and to avoid a trial in nullity. See Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012) 11 NWLR p. 137 (SC); Odofin v. Agu (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 229) 350 and Oloba v. Akereja (1988) 3 NWLR (pt. 84) 508.
Section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the FRN (as amended) provides:
‘Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.’
And Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 provides:
‘Any person who alleges that any of the Fundamental Rights provided for in the Constitution or African Charter on Human and People’s Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act and to which he is entitled has been is being, or is likely to be infringed may apply to the Court in the State where the infringement occurs or is likely to occur for redress.
The provision of Section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution is very clear and does not need the importation of the interpretation of any other section of the Constitution to explain them. Likewise Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. Therefore the learned trial Judge misdirected himself when he proceeded to determine the main suit after having found that there was no any breach of the fundamental rights of the Applicant/Respondent that occurred in Ibadan Oyo State. The entire proceedings is therefore a nullity and I so declare.
Having declared the proceedings to be a nullity, it would amount to an academic exercise to consider the remaining five issues. In other words, it would be an exercise in futility.
Issue one is resolved in favour of the Appellants. The Ruling of the trial Court delivered on the 25th day of June, 2012 is hereby set aside and the claims of the Applicant/Respondent before the lower Court is struck out.
Appeal allowed.
JIMI OLUKAYODE BADA, J.C.A.: I had the advantage of reading in draft of the lead Judgment of my learned brother ABUBARKAR MAHMUD TALBA, JCA, just delivered.
My Lord has dealt with the main issue for determination in this appeal in a very lucid form and I agree with the reasons contained in the Judgment as well as the conclusions reached.
It is also my view that there is merit in this appeal and it is allowed by me. I abide by the consequential order made in the said lead Judgment.
NONYEREM OKORONKWO, J.C.A.: In so far as no element of the breach of the fundamental right of the applicant occurred in Ibadan Oyo State, the High Court in Oyo State cannot assume jurisdiction to inquire into violation of fundamental right occurring in Osogbo in Osun State. Section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution.
To that extent, I agree with the lead judgment of my learned brother Abubakar Mahmud Talba JCA.
Appearances:
M.O. Okediya Esq.For Appellant(s)
1st respondent’s Counsel Absent
2nd -5th respondents’ Counsel Absent
For Respondent(s)
