ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION v. ALHAJI BABA INUWA & ANOR (2014)

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION v. ALHAJI BABA INUWA & ANOR

(2014)LCN/7726(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Thursday, the 26th day of June, 2014

CA/K/87/2005

RATIO

COURT: JURISDICTION; THE IMPORTANCE OF JURISDICTION TO A PROCEEDING

Jurisdiction is the basis upon which a court exercises its judicial authority to determine causes and matters placed before it. The issue of jurisdiction is so significant and fundamental to adjudication that any trial conducted by a court that lack jurisdiction is an exercise in futility and the decision based thereon amounts to a nullity. See MADUKOLU V. NKEMDILIN [1962] 1 ANLR 587; AREMO II v. ADEKANYE [2004] 13 NWLR [Pt.891] 575. per. ISAIAH O. AKEJU, J.C.A.

COURT: JURISDICTION; WHETHER ACQUIESCENCE OR WAIVER TO A PROCEDURAL ISSUES CAN CONFER SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION ON A COURT WHERE IT HAS NONE AND WHEN THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED

Jurisdiction is a matter of law and while a party can acquiesce to or waive a procedural issue, such acquiescence or waiver cannot confer substantive jurisdiction on a court where it has none. See NDAYAKO V. DANTORO [2004] 13 NWLR [Pt.889] 87.
Although it is neater and better to raise an objection to jurisdiction at the very early stage of the proceedings so as to have same determined at that stage, the failure to raise such objection at early stage does not prevent the party from raising it at a later state of the proceedings. It is trite that due to its fundamental nature, an issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings or even for the first time on appeal. See ADETONA V. IGELE GENERAL ENTERPRISES LTD. [2011] 1 MJSC [Pt.1] 102; ELABANJO V. DAWODU [2006] 15 NWLR [Pt.1001] 76; OLORIODE V. OYEBI [1984] 1 SCNLR 390; NDIC v. CBN [2002] 7 NWLR (Pt.766] 272; ONIAH V. ONYIA [1989] 1 NWLR [Pt.99] 514. per. ISAIAH O. AKEJU, J.C.A.

COURT: JURISDICTION; WHAT THE COURT CONSIDERS IN THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER IT HAS JURISDICTION IN A PARTICULAR MATTER

In the determination of whether it has jurisdiction in a particular matter, the court considers the claims before it as stated in the initiating process(es), such as the writ and statement of claim filed or as in the instant case, in applicants’ motion. See NKUMA V. ODILI [2006] 6 NWLR [Pt.977] 587; ONUORAH V. K.R.P.C. [2005] 6 NWLR [Pt. 921] 393; ADEYEMI V. OPEYORI [1976] 1 FNLR 149; BRONIK MOTORS V. WEMA BANK LTD. [1983] 6 SC 158; AKINSANYA V. UBA LTD [1986] 4 NWLR [Pt. 35] 273. per. ISAIAH O. AKEJU, J.C.A.

COURT: JURISDICTION; THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT AND THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT IN A MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION

By virtue of Section 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) a person who alleges that his fundamental human right has been, is being or is threatened to be breached may apply to “a High Court” in that state, and by virtue of Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1999, the word “Court” means the Federal High Court or a State High Court. The implication of this is that in matters of enforcement of fundamental human rights the Federal High Court and the State High Court concurrently exercise jurisdiction. See JACK V. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI [2004] ALL FWLR [Pt. 200] 1506; GAFAR v. GOVERNMENT OF KWARA STATE [2007] ALL FWLR [Pt.360] 1415. Now the Federal High Court is a creature of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) being one of the Courts of record mentioned in Section 6 therein. The Federal High Court is established under Section 249 of the same Constitution which provides that “there shall be a Federal High Court”. Also Section 1 of the Federal High Court Act (As amended in 2005), provides for the establishment of a High Court of Justice to be styled the Federal High Court. Thus what the law establishes and recoqnises is one Federal High Court but which has been divided into divisions for administrative convenience.
One salient fact that emanates from the claim of the 2nd respondent is that his arrest and detention by the appellant was at the instance of the 1st respondent whose address was in Kaduna, and by the application of Order II Rule 1 of Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000, the Federal High Court Kaduna had jurisdiction. per. ISAIAH O. AKEJU, J.C.A.

DAMAGES: AWARD OF DAMAGES; GENERAL DAMAGES, THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE QUANTUM TO BE AWARDED AND WHAT THE APPELLATE COURT MUST BE SATISFIED OF TO JUSTIFY THE INTERFERENCE WITH THE AWARD OF DAMAGES

General damages is the kind of damages which the law presumes to be the consequence of the act complained of and unlike special damages a claimant for general damages does not need to specifically plead and specially prove it by evidence, it is sufficient if the facts thereof are generally averred.

The award of general damages and the assessment of the quantum to be awarded is squarely at the bossom of the trial judge. See YALAJU-AMAYE V. A.R.E.C. LTD. [1990] 6 SC 167, and the law is that an appellate court does not lightly interfere with award of damages. To justify any interference with the award of damages, the court should be satisfied by the appellant that,
1. the trial curt acted or proceeded upon wrong principles of law, or
2. the amount awarded by trial court is manifestly too high or ridiculously low, or
3. the amount was an extremely erroneous estimate which no reasonable tribunal will make.
See A.G. LEVENTIS NIG. PLC V. CHIEF CHRISTIAN AKPU [2007] ALL FWLR [PT.338] 1028; UBN LTD. V. ODUSOTE BOOKSTORES LTD [1995] 9 NWLR [pt. 421] 550; OBERE V. BOARD OF MANAGEMENT, EKU BAPTIST HOSPITAL [1978] 6-7 SC 15. per. ISAIAH O. AKEJU, J.C.A.

JUSTICES

ISAIAH OLUFEMI AKEJU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

OLADOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION Appellant(s)

AND

1. ALHAJI BABA INUWA
2. ALHAII ADO UMAR Respondent(s)

ISAIAH O. AKEJU, J.C.A. (Delivering The Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, holden at Kaduna delivered on 25/10/2000 in Suit No.FHC/KD/CP/3/2004 which was instituted on 8/4/2004 by the 2nd respondent against the appellant and the 1st respondent for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights following the leave granted for that purpose. The 2nd Respondent as the applicant had prayed the trial court for a declaration that his arrest at his house, 36 Bissau Crescent, Malali, Kaduna on 18/3/2004 by the appellant’s security agents and/or officers upon the complaint of the 1st respondent was illegal and unconstitutional having violated his fundamental rights; a declaration that his detention since 18/3/2004 was a violation of his fundamental rights and therefore unlawful and unconstitutional; N1 Million damages against the appellant and the 1st respondent (as the two respondents) jointly and severally for his unlawful and unconstitutional arrest and detention; an order admitting him to bail pending his arraignment in court, and an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Respondents, by themselves, servants, agents or privies from rearresting or detaining him in breach of his fundamental rights.

A supporting affidavit of 15 paragraphs, a statement, the Grounds for the reliefs sought, the verifying affidavit as well as the Affidavit of service were filed with the motion on Notice. The two respondents at the trial court filed their counter affidavit to the depositions of the applicant and the trial court granted bail to the 2nd respondent (applicant) at the proceedings of 29/4/04 in line with the 4th relief sought in his motion on Notice.

The motion was heard at the proceedings of 29/7/2004 (pages 35 – 49 of the record of appeal) at which the parties were represented by their respective learned counsel who presented arguments on their behalf, and in the judgment delivered on 25/10/2004 the trial court granted No. 2 of the reliefs and granted relief number 3 partially while numbers 1 and 5 were refused. All the claims against the 1st respondent were refused and dismissed.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants filed notice of appeal on 8/11/2004, with two grounds of appeal, (as amended on 23/1/14) and in the Appellant’s Brief of Argument prepared by Joshua Saidi Esq. of counsel and filed on 29.6.05 but deemed filed on 17/10/05 in prosecution of the appeal, two issues for determination were distilled from the two grounds of appeal as follows:-
1. Whether the Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna had jurisdiction to entertain the Application for the enforcement of the fundamental right of the 2nd Respondent who was detained in the office of the appellant at Abuja outside Kaduna.
2. Assuming but without conceding that the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application, whether the Lower Court used any parameter in arriving at N200,000 as general damages against the Appellant in favour of the 2nd Respondent.

In the Second Respondent’s Brief of Argument settled by P. Y. Garuba Esq. and filed on 24/11/05, the issues set down for determination are:
1. Whether the trial Lower Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Second Respondent’s Claim in its entirety.
2. Whether the learned trial judge was right in awarding the Second Respondent the sum of N200,000.00 as compensatory damages.

Thus the appellant and the 2nd respondent have in different words raised issues concerning the jurisdiction of the trial court and the propriety of the award of damages in the sum of N200,000.00. This appeal will be considered and determined on the basis of those two issues raised by the parties.

The 1st Respondent did not file any Brief of Argument. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on the first issue is that in so far as the trial court had refused the claim in respect of unlawful arrest, that Federal High Court, sitting in Kaduna had no jurisdiction in respect of the second claim concerning a detention that took place in Abuja. The learned counsel submitted that in matters of fundamental rights enforcement the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court is restricted to the one located in the place where the infringement is said to have occurred relying on Section 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and the cases of TUKUR V. GOVERNMENT OF GONGOLA STATE [1989] 4 NWLR [Pt.117] 517; MIL. ADMIN. BENUE STATE V. ABAYILO [2001] 5 NWLR [Pt.705] 19; MIL. ADM. OF TARABA STATE V. JEN [2001] 1 NWLR [Pt.694] 416; INAH V. UKOI [2001] 9 NWLR [Pt.773] 563:

It was submitted that the Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna does not share any geographical jurisdiction with Abuja where the detention took place, therefore the Court in Kaduna lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and the proper order was to strike out the matter as any order made without jurisdiction is void abinitio, citing FALOYE V.OMOSENI [2001] 9 NWLR [Pt.190].

The learned counsel submitted that the appellant can raise the issue of jurisdiction which was not raised at the Lower Court in this court for the first time with or without leave, citing GAJI V. PAYE [2003] 10 NWLR [Pt.776] 12.

The 2nd respondent has contended on this issue that Order 11 Rules 1-4 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 contain provisions governing the place of institution and trial of suits, and in the absence of a specific rule governing Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure), there under, the proper rule to rely on is Order 11 Rule 1 (9) which requires “all other suits” to be commenced and determined in the Judicial Division in which the defendant resides or carries on business or in which the cause of action arose.

According to the learned counsel, the cause of action in this case arose in Kaduna where the officers and men of the appellant arrested the 2nd respondent and took him to Abuja where he was subsequently detained. It was submitted that the cause of action emanated from Kaduna within the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal High Court Kaduna and both the arrest and subsequent detention of the 2nd respondent fall within the same transaction and cannot be disjunctive, citing UNIVERSITY PRESS LTD. V. I. K. MARTINS NIG. LTD. [2000] 2 SCNJ 224.

It was submitted that there is only one Federal High Court of Nigeria and the creation of divisions of that Court is merely for administrative convenience, citing IGBINOGHODUA OGIGIE V. OBINYAN [1997] 10 SCNJ 1. It was submitted further that a litigant is not permitted in law to split his cause of action and litigate them separately or in separate courts, citing NGWO V. MONYE [1970] 1 ALL NLR 91; OLORIEGBE V. OMOTOSHO [2003] 1 SCNJ 30.

The learned counsel submitted that the failure of the appellant to timeously raise this issue or to bring it up with reliance on Order 11 Rule 3 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 means that the appellant had acquiesced to the action and cannot later complain about an irregular procedure to which he has acquiesced, citing NOIBI V. FIKOLATI [1987] 1 NWLR [Pt.52] 619; OGIGIE V. OBINYAN (Supra).

The learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that having failed to “timeously” raise this issue of jurisdiction at the trial court, the appellant has acquiesced to the respondent’s action.

In the instant case the 2nd respondent who had applied for the enforcement of his fundamental rights alleged that he was arrested by the appellant in Kaduna and eventually detained in Abuja. The Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna refused the claim in respect of the arrest but awarded damages having found that the detention was unlawful.

By virtue of Section 46(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) a person who alleges that his fundamental human right has been, is being or is threatened to be breached may apply to “a High Court” in that state, and by virtue of Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1999, the word “Court” means the Federal High Court or a State High Court. The implication of this is that in matters of enforcement of fundamental human rights the Federal High Court and the State High Court concurrently exercise jurisdiction. See JACK V. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE MAKURDI [2004] ALL FWLR [Pt. 200] 1506; GAFAR v. GOVERNMENT OF KWARA STATE [2007] ALL FWLR [Pt.360] 1415.
Now the Federal High Court is a creature of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) being one of the Courts of record mentioned in Section 6 therein. The Federal High Court is established under Section 249 of the same Constitution which provides that “there shall be a Federal High Court”. Also Section 1 of the Federal High Court Act (As amended in 2005), provides for the establishment of a High Court of Justice to be styled the Federal High Court. Thus what the law establishes and recoqnises is one Federal High Court but which has been divided into divisions for administrative convenience.
One salient fact that emanates from the claim of the 2nd respondent is that his arrest and detention by the appellant was at the instance of the 1st respondent whose address was in Kaduna, and by the application of Order II Rule 1 of Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000, the Federal High Court Kaduna had jurisdiction.

From the claim and circumstances of this case the Federal High Court Kaduna had jurisdiction and I resolve this issue against the appellant.

On the second issue which concerns the award of N200,000 as damages against the appellant, it was submitted by the appellant’s Counsel that in arriving at the damages to be awarded, the court must take evidence and the circumstances of the case into consideration in determining the damages that are reasonable in the case, citing ALBASINA (NIG) LTD. V. SALAMI [1998] 4 NWLR [Pt.546] 448. It was contended that the trial court did not state any basis for the award of N200,000.00 apart from the finding that the 2nd respondent was detained for 42 days and failed to consider the affidavit evidence of the parties especially that 2nd Respondent was given bail in arriving at the amount of damages to be awarded, citing ODIBA v. AZEGE [1998] 9 NWLR [pt.566] 370.

On the circumstances in which an appellate court should interfere with the award of damages by the trial court, the case of C.C.B. LTD. v. NWOKOCHA [1989] 9 NWLR [pt.564] 98 was cited by learned Counsel who urged that the award of the damages be set aside.

The learned counsel for the second respondent cited the case of DIRECTOR OF STATE SECURITY SERVICE V. AGBAKOBA [1999] 3 SCNJ 1 to submit that a matter under the fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules is heard on the basis of the affidavit evidence of the parties. It was submitted that the trial court rightly awarded N200,000 damages after finding that the 2nd respondent’s fundamental right had been breached by the appellant’s refusal to arraign him in court within a reasonable time.

The learned counsel submitted that in matters relating to detention of persons the detaining authority must comply with the law, citing IYERE V. DURU [1986] 5 NWLR [Pt.44] 665. The issue of bail granted to the 2nd respondent cannot supplant his constitutional right to be arraigned within a reasonable time. The case of C.C.B. NIG. PLC. V. A.G. ANAMBRA STATE [1992] 10 SCNJ 137 was cited in support of this submission.

It was contended that the award of N200,000.00 was done judicially and judiciously by the trial court and it ought to be upheld. The learned counsel submitted that what the appellate court looks at is whether the trial court was right in its decision and not the reasons for the decision, citing ABEL NKADO V. OBIANO [1997] 5 SCNJ 339.

In its judgment after assessing and evaluating the evidence of the parties, the trial court found and held that the detention of the 2nd respondent was in breach of his fundamental right under Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and consequently awarded N200,000.00 as damages out of the amount of N1 Million claimed.

The amount of N200,000 awarded by the trial court out of the sum of N1 Million claimed by the applicant does not appear and cannot be said to be too high or too low in the circumstances of this case and I find no basis to upset the award or to interfere with the amount awarded.

I consequently resolve this issue against the appellant.
Having resolved the two issues against the appellant, the compelling conclusion is that this appeal is devoid of any merit and I dismiss it accordingly. I make no order as to costs

HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, Isaiah O. Akeju, JCA. His Lordship has considered and resolved the issues in contention in this appeal. I agree with the reasoning and abide the conclusions. I have nothing more to add.

OLUDOTUN ADEBOLA ADEFOPE-OKOJIE, J.C.A.: I am in agreement with my learned brother Isaiah O. Akeju, JCA that the Federal High Court Kaduna had jurisdiction to entertain the 2nd Respondent’s claim.

I am also in agreement that an appellate court does not lightly interfere with an award of damages made by the Lower Court except under certain circumstances, such as where the award is too high or too low or the trial court acted on a wrong principle of law or made an estimate of damages which is entirely erroneous.
An appellate court will not upset an award merely because it would have awarded a different figure if it had heard the case itself. See Chief F. R. A. Williams vs. Daily Times of Nigeria Ltd (1990) LPELR 3487 (SC) at 96 Para A; (1990) 1 NWLR part 124 P.1 per Uwais, JSC (as he then was); Akinkugbe vs. Ewulum Holdings Nigeria Ltd (2008) 12 NWLR part 1098 p. 375 at 410 para A – B per Onnoghen, JSC.

None of these circumstances have been shown to exist in this case. There is thus no reason to interfere with the award of damages by the Lower Court.
I also dismiss this appeal as lacking in merit.

Appearances

J. Saidi Esq.For Appellant

AND

P. Y. Garuba with Sulayman Umar for the 2nd RespondentFor Respondent