ENGR. YUSUF ALIYU BABA v. CHIEF ETHEL ODIMEGWU & ORS
(2019)LCN/13176(CA)
In The Court docket of Attraction of Nigeria
On Friday, the Third day of Might, 2019
CA/A/150/2013
RATIO
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: HOW FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS CAN BE PROVED
Within the case of CHIEF (HON) JAMES CLEMENT M. OHANEDUM & ANOR V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (IMO STATE) & ORS (2015) LPELR-24318 (CA). This Court docket held as follows:
“By legislation, the second the Applicant, in a elementary rights matter, proves the violation of his proper(s), the Respondent(s), who’s pinned right down to the acts, has an obligation to justify his mentioned acts, to flee legal responsibility. See the case of Ejefor vs. Okeke (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 363, the place it was held; “The place there’s an proof of arrest and detention of an applicant which had been accomplished or instigated by the Respondent… it’s for the Respondent to indicate that the arrest and detention had been lawful. So as phrases, the onus is on the one that admits detention of one other to show that the detention was lawful.” See additionally Agbakoba v. SSS (1994) NWLR(Pt. 351) 475; Ogbonna v. Ogbonna (2014) 23 WRN 48; Osil v.Balogun (2012) 38 WRN 143.”See additionally Ozide & Ors v. Ewuzie & Ors (2015) LPELR- 24482 (CA) Ogbonna v. Ogbonna & Anr (2014) LPLER 22 308 (CA).”PER STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH Justice of The Court docket of Attraction of Nigeria
TINUADE AKOMOLAFE-WILSON Justice of The Court docket of Attraction of Nigeria
EMMANUEL AKOMAYE AGIM Justice of The Court docket of Attraction of Nigeria
Between
ENGR. YUSUF ALIYU BABA Appellant(s)
AND
1. CHIEF ETHEL ODIMEGWU
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SPECIAL FRAUD UNIT (SFU) FORCE CID, ABUJA.
4. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE (OC) SPECIAL
ANTI-ROBBERY SQUARD (SARS) Respondent(s)
STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Main Judgment): This enchantment is in opposition to the choice of the Excessive Court docket of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja in Swimsuit No. FCT/HC/1312/12 delivered on 28/2/13 by C.O. AGBAZA, J.
The matter was originated on the decrease Court docket below the Basic Rights (Enforcement Process) Guidelines 2009. The appellant was the 4th Respondents whereas the first Respondent was the Applicant on the decrease Court docket. By a movement on discover looking for for enforcement of his Basic Rights, the first Respondent as applicant sought the next reliefs: –
1. A DECLARATION that the arrest and detention of the Applicant on the Particular Anti-Theft Squad (Garki II) Abuja in November, 2011 on a sheer contractual disagreement between the Applicant and the 4th Respondent is against the law, unconstitutional, and in opposition to the provisions of Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 4, 5, 6 and 19 of the African Constitution on Human and Folks’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. A9 Legal guidelines of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
2. A DECLARATION that the arrest and
1
detention of the applicant on the Particular Fraud Unit (SFU) CID Power Head Quarter Abuja, on the eighth Might 2012 is against the law, unconstitutional and in opposition to the provisions of Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 4, 5, 6 and 19 of the African Constitution on Human and Peoples; Rights (Ratification and enforcement) Act Cap. A9 legal guidelines of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2004.
3. A DECLARATION that the use and or employment of the officers and males of the first – Third Respondents by the 4th Respondent to harass, arrest and detain the Applicant on the Particular Anti-Theft Squad (SARS) Garki II Abuja in November, 2011 and Particular Fraud Unit (SFU) Power CID Abuja on Might 2012 over a contractual dispute is against the law, unconstitutional and in opposition to the provisions of Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and Articles 4, 5, 6, and 19 of the African Constitution on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and enforcement Act Cap, A9 legal guidelines of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 2004.
4. DAMAGES within the sum of Ten Million Naira (10,000000.00) in opposition to the Respondents
2
collectively and serially for the arbitrary, unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional arrest of the Applicant by Officers and males below the command of the first to Third Respondents.
5. AN ORDER of this Honorable Court docket directing the 1st-4th Respondents to tender a public apology to the Applicant.
6. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the first -Third Respondents both by themselves, their brokers, servants and/or privies or nevertheless described from additional harassing, inviting, arresting and or detaining the Applicant, on any criticism boarding on the contractual Relationship between the Applicant and the 4th Respondent.
7. AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 4th Respondent both by himself, his brokers, servants and/or privies or howsoever described from additional harassing, intimidating and or using the officers and males of the first Respondent or personnel’s of any Navy or Para-Navy institution together with thugs, vigilante teams to harass, intimidate, invite, arrest and or detain the Applicant, on any criticism boarding (sic) on the contractual relationship between the Applicant and the 4th Respondent.
3
8. AND for such additional orders because the Honourable Court docket could deem to make within the circumstances.
The appliance for enforcement was heard by the decrease Court docket and the Court docket reached the next conclusion on the applying:
In conclusion, subsequently from the totality of the affidavit proof earlier than the Court docket, the Applicant has established a breach of his Basic Rights. Consequently, the reliefs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 of the Applicant are hereby granted.
On the reliefs Four and 5 Part 35 (6) of the 1999 Structure as amended gives that an individual who’s unlawfully arrest and detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology. What this implies is that, the entitlement to compensation and public apology will solely come up the place the arrest or detention is discovered illegal within the sense {that a} Court docket had discovered that the Basic Proper of an individual has been violated consequent upon his arrest and detention. The Court docket have in the midst of this Ruling discovered that the Applicant’s Basic Rights have been violated by the first -Third Respondent on his arrest and detention over a contractual dispute which is solely civil in nature. Due to this fact, the reliefs 4
4
and 5 of the applicant are additionally granted. Nonetheless, in granting the reduction 4, the sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) is awarded as damages in favour of the Applicant in opposition to the Respondents collectively and severally for the Applicant’s unlawfully arrested and detention.
In abstract, the discovering of this Court docket is as following: –
1. Reliefs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and seven are hereby granted.
2. On the reduction 4, it’s hereby ordered that the Respondent collectively and severally shall, pay the sum of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) as broken for the illegal arrest and detention of the Applicant.
The appellant who was the 4th Respondent to the applying on the decrease Court docket was aggrieved by the choice of the decrease Court docket therefore this enchantment. The discover of enchantment was filed on 28/2/13 the very day the choice was handed down.
The File of Attraction was transmitted on 27/3/13. The appellants transient was filed on 16/14/13 whereas the Respondents’ transient was filed on 17/5/13.
The appellant in his transient submitted one problem for dedication. This problem is:
Whether or not the Trial Court docket was proper to have granted the reliefs sought by the first Respondent
5
within the absence of:
a) Any proof to determine the breach of the rights by the Appellant; and
b) Any discovering by the Court docket that the Appellant breached the rights of the first Respondent.
(Distilled from Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Discover of Attraction).
The first Respondent on this enchantment was the one respondent that filed a quick of argument. The first Respondent distilled two points for dedication. These points are couched as following: –
1. Whether or not the Discovered Trial Court docket (sic) was not proper to have held that the first Respondent has established a breach of his Basic Rights by the Appellant and a couple of – Four Respondents and subsequently entitled to damages.
2. Whether or not the acts of the Appellant and 2nd- 4th Respondent didn’t breach the basic Rights of the first Respondent as enshrined within the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), having regard to the pleadings of the events and the affidavit proof earlier than the Court docket and whether or not the award by the trial Court docket is adequate within the circumstances.
The events have of their respective Briefs raised the problem of whether or not the first Respondent who was
6
applicant on the decrease Court docket established that his proper was breached as claimed.
The events have of their respective Briefs raised the problem of whether or not the first Respondent who was applicant on the decrease Court docket established that his proper was breached as claimed. This problem is the core of the problems generated within the briefs of the appellant and the first Respondent. The difficulty that’s essential on this enchantment subsequently is one. The difficulty is whether or not the breach of elementary rights of the first Respondent was established from the proof earlier than the decrease Court docket. It’s this problem subsequently that will probably be thought-about within the dedication of this enchantment.
The crux of the criticism of the first Respondent who was the applicant earlier than the decrease the Court docket was that of illegal arrest and detention of the first Respondent.
By Part 46 (1) of the Structure of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended, any one that alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or more likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him could apply to a Excessive Court docket in that State for redress. This provision it’s trite, can solely be invoked when the principle or
7
precept reduction within the utility is the enforcement or securing of the enforcement of a elementary proper. See EMEKA V. OKOROAFOR & ORS (2017) LPELR ? 41738 (SC).
Within the instantaneous case, the first Respondent lodged a criticism earlier than the Court docket that he was unlawfully arrested and detained by the 2nd, Third and 4th Respondents. This little question is a correct criticism a few breach of the basic proper of the first Respondent. At pages 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the File of Attraction is the 33 paragraphed affidavit of the first Respondent in assist of the applying, Paragraphs Four to 12 and 17 to 21 inform of the associated story and they’re rendered as follows: –
4. That I do know the 4th Respondent on this swimsuit and have had some enterprise relationship with him prior to now.
5. That in December 2008 my firm Core Earth Restricted approached the 4th Respondent to facilitate the excision and re-allocation of 2771 Hectares of Land situate, mendacity and often known as Plot No. 23 Cadastral Zone CO9 Lokogoma District-Abuja to it and the 4th Respondent agreed.
6. That the mentioned firm was initially allotted 5.00 hectares however 2.771 hectares had been alleged revoked by the
8
Federal Capital Territory Administration Abuja.
7. That in consideration for the work anticipated to be accomplished by the 4th Respondent the mentioned firm provided/allotted Home No. 28 Palm View Property Lokogoma District-Abuja to the 4th Respondent by way of a letter dated 30th June 2009. The mentioned letter is hereby connected and marked as EXHIBIT A.
8. That the 4th Respondent reneged on his contractual obligation as contained within the contract between him and the corporate thus making the corporate to rescind the contract and revoked the provide it made to the 4th Respondent by way of a letter dated 30th January 2011. The mentioned letter is hereby connected and marked as EXHIBIT B.
9. That the 4th Respondent was dissatisfied with the choice of the mentioned firm menace to life Terrorism and Felony intimidation and lodged a criticism with the Third Respondent who despatched officers and males below its command to arrest me.
10. That in November, 2011 whereas I used to be supervising development works at a development website in Palm View Property Lokogoma District Abuja some officers and males of the Nigerian Police Power connected to the Third Respondent stormed the location, in a commando trend bundle
9
me into their car in a most degrading and inhuman method and took me to their workplace in Garki Abuja.
11. That I used to be assaulted by the officers and males of the Nigerian Police Power who arrested me and handled like an arm robber whereas of their custody.
12. That I used to be detained in the identical cell with some fierce exhausting wanting felony suspects who instantly bounded on me and inflicted quite a few blows one me.
17. That on eighth Might, 2012 the officers and males of the Nigeria Police Power connected to the 2nd Respondent invited me to their workplace at CID Power Head Quarters Abuja and I went.
18. That I used to be proven a petition written by the 4th Respondent in opposition to me and I reacted to similar by the use of written assertion below warning. The 4th Respondent additionally made an announcement upon being confronted with the details in my assertion.
19. That after sequence of interrogation by the officers and males of the 2nd Respondent I used to be taken to a room inside the premises whereby I used to be detained and subsequently launched on bail.
20. That the petition written in opposition to me by the 4th Respondent to the 2nd Respondent is comparable in nature to the one he had earlier written to
10
the Third Respondent resulting in my arrest and detention. As similar contained allegation of menace to life, felony intimidation and terrorism.
21. That the officers and males of the 2nd Respondent who interrogated me, instructed me on the mentioned date and I verily consider them that they’ve discovered nothing incrim
