FRANCIS v. ASUGHA
(2020)LCN/14469(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(OWERRI JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, July 15, 2020
CA/OW/261/2018
Before Our Lordships:
Raphael Chikwe Agbo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal
Ibrahim Ali Andenyangtso Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
EGEONU ALAOMA FRANCIS APPELANT(S)
And
NZE EDWIN O. ASUGHA RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION OF APPEAL MUST FLOW FROM THE GROUND SOF APPEAL
By law, an issue for determination of Appeal must flow from or relate to the ground(s) of the Appeal, which must, in turn, derive from or be rooted in the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against. See the case of Nwaigwe & Anor Vs Amaechi & Ors (2017) LPELR – 43080 CA:
“We have stated, several times, that an issue for determination of an appeal, must relate to and flow from the ground(s) of the Appeal, which must also derive from and be founded on the judgment appealed against. See Onwukwe Vs Ekejiuba (2017) LPELR – 42417 (CA); Nze Vs Aribe (2016) LPELR – 40617 (CA); Shettima Vs Goni (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 413; Ajibulu Vs Ajayi (2013) LPELR – 21860 SC. PER MBABA, J.C.A.
WHETHER OR NOT WHAT CONSTITUTES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ACTION RELATES TO INFRINGEMENT OF ANY OF THE BASIC RIGHTS OF THE APPLICANT
What constitutes fundamental rights action relates to infringement of any of the basic rights of Applicant, as specified in the Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended. See the case of Al-Hashim Vs Tom & Ors (2019) LPELR – 47651 (CA):
“By virtue of Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) and Order 1 Rule 2(1) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, any person who alleged that any of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution to which he is entitled to has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him, may apply to the High Court in that state for redress… There are provisions which entitled a person to enforce his fundamental rights where he feels his right is contravened or being or likely to be contravened. See Lekwot Vs Judicial Tribunal (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt.276) 410; Saude Vs Abdullahi (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.116) 387; Uzoukwu Vs Ezeonu II (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.200) 708… A dispute to the right of preemption in the purchase of a property cannot be equated to infringement of Fundamental Rights.” Per Hassan JCA. PER MBABA, J.C.A.
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of Imo State High Court in Suit No. HON/35/2017, delivered on 7th February, 2018, by Hon. Justice S.I. Okpara, wherein his lordship entered judgment against the Appellant, who was the Applicant at the Court below and dismissed his case, a fundamental rights action.
At the trial Court the Applicant had sought:
(1) A declaration that the acts of the Respondent on 4/6/2016 by (stopping) dragging the microphone off the hands of the Applicant in public while the Applicant was mastering a traditional wedding ceremony saying publicly that he has ostracized the Applicant in Obinuhu for stealing meat and which happened in Anire’s compound in Obinuhu Village in Nkwerre, Nkwerre L.G.A. of Imo State, is demeaning and a violation of the fundamental rights of the Applicant to freedom of Association, dignity of human person and right not to be discriminated against.
(2) A declaration of the Court that the ban or the ex-communication, ostracizing of the Applicant in Obinuhu Village by the Respondent and banning him from having any socio-economic or
1
socio-cultural relations with anybody in Obinuhu Village and relying on Section 15(6)(x) of the Umuduruonaribe Family Union Constitution is unlawful and a violation of the fundamental rights of the Applicant.
(3) A declaration that the threats by the Respondent that he will deal with the Applicant and anybody who engaged the Applicant to manage any ceremony in any place in Obinuhu Village is unlawful and a violation of the Fundamental Right to and freedom of Association of the Applicant.
(4) An Oder of the Honourable Court perpetually restraining the Respondent or anybody acting through him from harassing threatening the life of the Applicant’s dignity of human person or the right to Association or life of the Applicant.
(5) An Order of… Court enforcing the fundamental rights of the Applicant to life, personal liberty, freedom of association and dignity of human person as enshrined in Chapter IV of 1999 Constitution as amended in 2011.
(6) N300,000 as cost of litigation.
(7) N5,000,000 as damages against the Respondent.”
Appellant, as Applicant, had relied on the statement filed in support of the application,
2
together with the affidavits and exhibits thereof, to prove his claim. The Respondent had filed a Counter affidavit, with exhibits, to deny the claim. At the end of the trial and consideration of the affidavit evidence and addresses of Counsel, the trial Court dismissed the Applicant’s claim, saying:
“In paragraph 21 of the Applicant’s further affidavit, he repeated his deposition in paragraph 11 of his founding affidavit. From the foregoing, this Court does not believe the evidence of the Applicant as contained in paragraph 11 of his affidavit in support and paragraph 21 of his further affidavit. Having disbelieved the aforesaid evidence of the Applicant, which is the main plank of the Applicant’s case, this case fails and I so hold. Furthermore, the entire affidavit of the Applicant is replete with facts showing that the Applicant had a problem with his family union and not the Respondent perse as the Applicant purports to show in his reliefs, yet the family Union is not a party in this Suit, neither is the Chairman of the Family Union a party in the Suit. Indeed from the affidavit evidence of the Applicant, the Respondent is
3
not even an executive member or Officer of the Family Union. Again, the observation of the parties in this case by this Court shows that the Applicant is relatively younger in age and stronger. The Respondent is older and looks fragile, so this Court wonders how the older and fragile Respondent could have dragged Microphone from the Applicant on 4th June, 2016. The corollary of all that I have been saying is that I do not believe the evidence of the Applicant as same is improbable and unbelievable. Consequently, I dismiss this Suit in its entirely with N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) cost against the Applicant in favour of the Respondent.” (See Page 104 of the Records of Appeal).
That is the decision Appellant appealed against, as per the Notice and grounds of Appeal on pages 105 to 107 of the Records.
Appellant filed his brief of arguments on 16/7/2018 and donated three Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether the Learned trial Judge was right when he failed to rule on the submission of the Appellant’s Counsel that the notice of preliminary objection filed by the Respondent’s Counsel was not signed as
4
required by law.
(2) Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the principal claim in this Suit is not founded under the Fundamental Right Provisions of the 1999 Constitution as Amended, 2011. (Ground 2)
(3) Whether the Trial Judge was right when he held that the Appellant did not make out any case against the Respondent in prove of violation of his Fundamental Rights and relied on the further Counter affidavit deposed to by one Elder Sydney Ndukwe Asugha, who did not depose to any Counter affidavit and affirmed that the Appellant did not prove his case.
Appellant did not formally and properly relate his issues to the grounds of Appeal, except the Issue 2, which he related to the ground 2 of the Appeal. But because he formulated three grounds of Appeal, it would appear the three Issues for determination were distilled from the three grounds of the Appeal, serially, i.e. Issue 1 from ground 1; Issue 2 from ground 2 and Issue 3 from ground 3.
The Respondent filed his brief on 12/2/2019, which was deemed duly filed on 2/3/2020. He adopted the Issues for determination, as distilled by the Appellant, though he (Respondent) alleged,
5
wrongly, that Appellant distilled four Issues for the determination of the Appeal! The Respondent had, however, withdrawn his Issue 3 at the hearing of the appeal, on realizing that the Appeal is on three grounds.
Arguing the Appeal on 17/6/2020, Appellant’s Counsel, Uwakwe Israel, Esq, on Issue 1, said the trial Court was wrong when it failed to give or rule on the submission of Counsel to Appellant, that the notice of Preliminary Objection of the Respondent should be discountenanced by the Court, since it was not signed, as required by law. Counsel said that though Appellant had raised objection to the competence of the said preliminary objection on 9/11/2017, the trial Court failed to rule on it, and to embody same in the judgment appealed against.
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE ONE:
I think this issue (and ground one of the appeal), by the admission of Appellant’s Counsel, is self defeating, as the same does not flow from the judgment appealed against and/or does not form the basis of the decision of the trial Court, dismissing the Suit of the Applicant (Appellant). It is therefore a mere academic issue that enures no benefit to the
6
Appellant, or any party. The trial Court had considered the Application on the merit (not on the basis of the Preliminary Objection by Respondent), when it held that Applicant had failed to prove his claim.
By law, an issue for determination of Appeal must flow from or relate to the ground(s) of the Appeal, which must, in turn, derive from or be rooted in the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against. See the case of Nwaigwe & Anor Vs Amaechi & Ors (2017) LPELR – 43080 CA:
“We have stated, several times, that an issue for determination of an appeal, must relate to and flow from the ground(s) of the Appeal, which must also derive from and be founded on the judgment appealed against. See Onwukwe Vs Ekejiuba (2017) LPELR – 42417 (CA); Nze Vs Aribe (2016) LPELR – 40617 (CA); Shettima Vs Goni (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1279) 413; Ajibulu Vs Ajayi (2013) LPELR – 21860 SC.
The Respondent had argued that failure of the Trial Court to rule on the Preliminary Objection did not affect the right of fair hearing of the Appellant.
The said Issue one, and the ground one of the Appeal are therefore, hereby, struck
7
out, for incompetence, same not being founded on the judgment appealed against.
On Issue 2, whether the trial Court was right to hold that the principal claim in the Suit was not a claim founded under the Fundamental Rights provision of the 1999 Constitution as Amended, 2011, Counsel answered in the negative. He asserted that the principal relief was on fundamental rights of Appellant, and relied on the case of Attah Vs I.G.P. (2015) ALL FWLR (Pt.805) 108; Ogor Vs Emereonyekwe (2016) ALL FWLR (Pt.841) 1540.
Counsel, in paragraph 5.5 of the Brief, argued:
“… the trial Judge in his judgment held that the principal claim in this Suit did not fall within the Rights in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution as Amended, 2011. And we urge the Honourable Court to hold that the trial Judge was wrong…”
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE TWO:
Appellant did not refer this Court to the Records, where the trial Court made the alleged findings “that the principal claim in this Suit did not fall within the Rights provided under the Fundamental Rights in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution.” I have, personally, strained to see
8
where the trial Court did so, in the records, without success. What I have seen in the Records is that the trial Court held that “Applicant did not make out any case for the enforcement of his fundamental rights against the Respondent.” (See page 103 of Records of Appeal).
The trial Court, specifically, made reference to Applicant’s averment in paragraph 11 of the Supporting affidavit (and repeated in paragraph 21 of the further Affidavit), which the Court said it disbelieved, as the same was improbable and unbelievable. (See page 104 of the Records). The said Paragraph 11 of the supporting Affidavit states:
“That on Saturday the 4th day of June, 2016, at Anire’s Compound in Obinuhu Village, the Respondent came, where I was mastering or moderating a marriage ceremony of Miss Angela Anire. The Respondent forcefully took microphone off my hands in public and told me in my face and in front of the crowd that he has banned me from mastering any ceremony whatsoever in Obinuhu Village in Nkwerre L.G.A of Imo State. (Page 46 of the Records).
PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE FURTHER AFFIDAVIT:
“That in response to paragraph 21
9
of Exhibit B, it was the Respondent that took microphone off my hand and it happened in the Public and he even shouted saying that I cannot be the master of this ceremony. Thief! Thief.” (Page 65 of the Records)
The Respondent had denied the averments, when he deposed in his Counter affidavit, as follows:
(2) That I am a traditional title holder in Nkwerre, aged above eighty (80) years and as such I am not only bound to speak the truth but to maintain the culture and tradition of my village people and that of Nkwerre in general.
(3) That applicant in the above Suit was elected as the National Publicity Secretary of Umuduruonribe Family Union, which post he held until he grossly misbehaved and punishment, as prescribed by the Constitution of the Union, was meted out to him. The said Constitution is herewith attached…
(4) That the applicant had no issues with fellow members of the Executive of the Union but with members, as he stole meat belonging to the Union and he was caught and punished for gross misconduct as an officer.
(5) The applicant was initially given an opportunity to be heard and even told to apologize for his
10
gross misconduct (stealing of meat) but he failed to do so, hence the Union meted out a punishment to him in accordance with the Union’s Constitution.
(6) That the Applicant failed to and/or neglected to satisfy the punishment meted out for him by the Family Union, hence, by the Provision of the Constitution of the Family Union which binds him, he was suspended from all activities of the Union, until and when he pays the fine…
(9) That as an Nze title holder, I have no personal dealings with the applicant neither have I ever been to his house nor entered into any direct communication with him, that has made me to make the applicant’s life miserable and unbearable.
(10) That as an ordinary member of the Family Union, I have no right to ban anybody from doing anything, as such I did not ban the applicant from going about his normal business.
(11) That the applicant, knowing the provision of the Constitution of the Union, voluntarily, ex-communicated himself and by reason that the applicant well knew that he cannot do anything in common with members of the Union, or participate in anything the Union is doing, or carry out
11
any function on behalf of the Union and/or its members until and when the applicant satisfies the punishment meted to him and/or wins on appeal to the Eshi in Council.
(12) That I have never conspired with anybody to level any allegation against the Applicant…
(13) That I am not aware that the Applicant is an event planner or a program manager…
(14) That I know and have seen him once while being a master of ceremony at some local functions in Nkwerre.
(15) That on the 4th of June, 2016, as he alleged in paragraph 11 of his affidavit, in support, I, Nze Edwin Asugha never ever came to him as he was at that Family Union function neither did I take the microphone off his hands nor threatened to do so…
(17) That the event of 4/6/2016 was an Umuduruonaibe Family Customary Marriage Ceremony and by the Constitution of the Union, he cannot participate in the Union activities, much more, conducting the affairs of the Union as a master of ceremony.
(18) That when I arrived at that Union function of 4th June, 2016 and immediately saw him conducting the affairs of the Union as an Nze title, holder, I told the officers of
12
the Union, i.e. Elder Ndukwe Asugha and Mr. Chubuike Akano that I will not be part of a ceremony wherein a member who has excommunicated himself from us is conducting the affairs of the Union, hence I decided to leave the ceremony by reason of being a traditional person for my house.
(19) That while I was in my house, the Chairman of the Amarama Meeting, Elder Ndukwe Asugha, came and informed me and I verily believed him that the officers of the Union acted promptly to stop Applicant from conducting the affairs of the traditional marriage, hence he pleaded with me to come back to the ceremony, which I did.
(20) That on the said day in question, I never spoke to the celebrant nor her parents, how much more threatening them with sanctions…” (See pages 16 to 18 of the Records of Appeal).
The trial Court had elected to believe the averments of the Respondent and to disbelieve the Applicant, and had stated reasons for its belief/disbelief. Appellant had a duty to puncture the basis of that belief/disbelief, to establish why he claimed the trial Court was wrong, but failed to do so in this Appeal. The Respondent’s affidavit
13
had carefully denied the allegations of the Appellant, that he (Respondent) forcefully took the microphone off the hands of the Applicant/Appellant in public; and said that he did not tell him, in front of the crowd, that he (Respondent) had banned Applicant from mastering any ceremony in the Obinuhu Villagein Nkwerre L.G.A. of Imo State; he said that he (Respondent) never ostracized him (Appellant) and never proclaimed any ostracization of Appellant at the alleged seizure or forceful taking off the microphone from him (Appellant)!
Of course, Appellant’s further affidavit did not debunk or controvert that denial by the Respondent, and there was no further evidence (witness) to support the claims of Appellant. I also think Appellant, in the further affidavit, had confirmed the story of his alleged misconduct, which attracted some sanction from the Family Union, a group he belonged and served as an officer!
I also think the act of seizing microphone from Appellant and calling him a thief, in the process, before the public (even if that happened), would not amount to violation of fundamental rights of Appellant. Rather, it would raise a case of
14
defamation, calling for proof of same. Appellant’s Counsel had argued that “the mere taking off microphone from a person in midst of crowd is demeaning, to talk of telling the crowd that the Appellant has been ostracized by the Respondent and which amounts to a violation of the right to dignity of human person of the Appellant as well as demeaning.” (See Paragraph 5.14 of the Appellant’s Brief).
The above submission, in my view, would unduly extend the limits of the meaning of “violation of human dignity”, especially, where the claim of ostracization and disgrace of Appellant in the public, by seizing microphone from him, on account of the alleged ostracization, has been denied by the Respondent, and has not been established by the Appellant.
The case of Ahuruonye Vs Ikonne (2015) ALL FWLR (Pt.811) 123, which Appellant relied on for the meaning of “inhuman treatment” and “violation of dignity of human person”, rather tends to relate more to a case of defamation, in my view, when it held:
“… inhuman treatment means treatment which is devoid of feelings for the suffering of
15
others, degrading treatment… holding one up to public obloquy, lowering a person in the estimation of the public, contempt and ridicule.”
What constitutes fundamental rights action relates to infringement of any of the basic rights of Applicant, as specified in the Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended. See the case of Al-Hashim Vs Tom & Ors (2019) LPELR – 47651 (CA):
“By virtue of Section 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) and Order 1 Rule 2(1) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009, any person who alleged that any of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution to which he is entitled to has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any state in relation to him, may apply to the High Court in that state for redress… There are provisions which entitled a person to enforce his fundamental rights where he feels his right is contravened or being or likely to be contravened. See Lekwot Vs Judicial Tribunal (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt.276) 410; Saude Vs Abdullahi (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.116) 387; Uzoukwu Vs Ezeonu II (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.200)
16
708… A dispute to the right of preemption in the purchase of a property cannot be equated to infringement of Fundamental Rights.” Per Hassan JCA.
In the same way, disputes as to snatching of a microphone from Appellant in public and calling him “thief”, or acting in a way that disgraces or demeans him (Appellant) in public place, does not appear to me to constitute infringement of fundamental rights. It may, however, lie some remedies, in tort or defamation.
I therefore resolve the Issue 2 against Appellant.
On the Issue 3, whether the trial Judge was right, when he held that Appellant did not make out any case against the Respondent in proof of violation of his Fundamental Rights, Counsel said the Respondent never denied that Appellant was stopped from moderating the traditional wedding ceremony; but that Respondent only heaped the blame on the so called executives of the Family Union, who never stopped Appellant, until the Respondent arrived at the venue.
Counsel for Respondent had asserted that the trial Court was right to hold that Appellant did not prove his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought; and that
17
Fundamental Right was not the principal relief.
I think I have settled this issue, while considering the Issue 2 raised by the Appellant. I, therefore, apply the resolution of the Issue 2 to this Issue 3, that what Appellant presented to the trial Court for consideration was, certainly, not a Fundamental Rights reliefs, in the main, when he averred that the Respondent forcefully took microphone off his hand in the public and/or threatened him, dragging the microphone from him. See Paragraph 11 of the supporting Affidavit and Paragraph 21 of the Further Affidavit).
I, therefore, see no merit in this Appeal and dismiss it, with cost assessed at Thirty Thousand Naira (N30,000.00) only, payable to the Respondent by the Appellant.
RAPHAEL CHIKWE AGBO, J.C.A.: I agree.
IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO, J.C.A.: I have read in advance the judgment of my Noble Lord, Hon. Justice I. G. Mbaba JCA and I agree with his reasoning and conclusion that this appeal lacks merit and I also dismiss same, abiding by the orders as to cost.
However I only need add a few words of mine by way of emphasis.
The Appellant at the trial had sought
18
for the following reliefs against the Respondent in a claim rooted in the enforcement of his fundamental human right, that is to say:-
“(1) A declaration that the acts of the Respondent on 4/6/2016 by (stopping) dragging the microphone off the hands of the Applicant in public while the Applicant was mastering a traditional wedding ceremony saying publicly that he has ostracized the Applicant in Obinuhu for stealing meat and which happened in Anire’s compound in Obinuhu Village in Nkwerre, Nkwerre L.G.A of Imo State, is demeaning and a violation of the fundamental rights of the Applicant to freedom of Association, dignity of human person and right not to be discriminated against.
(2) A declaration of the Court that the ban or the ex-communication, ostracizing of the Applicant in Obinuhu Village by the Respondent and banning him from having a socio-economic or socio-cultural relations with anybody in Obinuhu Village and relying on Section 15(6)(x) of the Umuduruonaribe family Union Constitution is unlawful and a violation of the fundamental rights of the Applicant.
(3) A declaration that the threats by the Respondent that he will deal with
19
the Applicant and anybody who engaged the Applicant to manage any ceremony in any place in Obinuhu Village is unlawful and a violation of the Fundamental Right to and freedom of Association of the Applicant.
(4) An Oder of the Honourable Court perpetually restraining the Respondent or anybody acting through him from harassing threatening the life of the Applicant’s dignity of human person or the right to Association or life of the Applicant.
(5) An Order of… Court enforcing the fundamental rights of the Applicant to life, personal liberty, freedom of association and dignity of human person as enshrined in Chapter IV of 1999 Constitution as amended in 2011.
(6) N300,000 as cost of litigation.
(7) N5,000,000 as damages against the Respondent.”
The Appellant supported the application with a statement together with the affidavits and exhibit, upon which he relied to prove his claim. Paragraph 11 of the founding affidavit repeated in paragraph 21 of the further affidavit upon which the Appellant relied states:-
“11. That on Saturday the 4th day of June, 2016, at Anire’s compound in Obinuhu village, the Respondent came,
20
where I was mastering or moderating a marriage ceremony of Miss Angela Anire. The Respondent forcefully took microphone off my hands in public and told me in my face and in front of the crowd that he has banned me from mastering any ceremony whatsoever in Obinuhu village in Nkwere L.G.A of Imo State” (see page 46 of the Records)
Paragraph 21 of the further affidavit contains the following:-
“21. That in response to paragraph 21 of Exhibit B, it was the Respondent that took microphone off my hand and it happened in the public and he even shouted saying that I cannot be the master of this ceremony. Thief! Thief” (See page 65 of the Records)
The Respondent, of course, denied the averments of the Appellant in his counter affidavit, which I need not reproduce here, and the Trial Judge after considering the averments in the affidavits of the parties, disbelieved the case of the Appellant in his judgment and on page 103 of the Record held as follows:
“Applicant did not make out any case for the enforcement of his fundamental rights against the Respondent.”
As earlier indicated, this claim of the Appellant was rooted on
21
the enforcement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
The Appellant had claimed that the action of the Respondent violated his right to freedom of association, dignity of human person and right not to be discriminated against under Section 34 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
The Learned trial Judge in dismissing the claims of the Appellant stated:
“In paragraph 21 of the Applicant’s further affidavit, he repeated his deposition in paragraph 11 of his founding affidavit. From the foregoing, this Court does not believe the evidence of the Applicant as contained in paragraph 11 of his affidavit in support and paragraph 21 of his further affidavit. Having disbelieved the aforesaid evidence of the Applicant, which is the main plank of the Applicant’s case, this case fails and I so hold. Furthermore, the entire affidavit of the Applicant is replete with facts showing that the Applicant had a problem with his family union and not the Respondent per se as the Applicant purports to show in his reliefs, yet the family Union is not a party in this Suit,
22
neither is the Chairman of the Family Union a party in the Suit. Indeed from the affidavit evidence of the Applicant, the Respondent is not even an executive member or Officer of the Family Union. Again, the observation of the parties in this case by this Court shows that the Applicant is relatively younger in age and stronger. The Respondent is older and looks fragile, so this Court wonders how the older and fragile Respondent could have dragged Microphone from the Applicant on 4th June, 2016. The corollary of all that I have been saying Is that I do not believe the evidence of the Applicant as same is improbable and unbelievable. Consequently, I dismiss this Suit in its entirety with N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) cost against the Applicant in favour of the Respondent.” (See page 104 of the Records of Appeal).
Issue 1 (presumably distilled from Ground 1) clearly does not flow from the judgment of the trial Court and should be struck out on the authority of NWAIGWE & ANOR VS. AMAECHI & ORS (2017) LPELR-43080 CA.
It is trite that what constitutes fundamental rights action is rooted in the infringement of any of the basic rights of a
23
citizen as enshrined in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). See AL-HASHIM VS. TOM & ORS (2019) LPELR-47651 CA. However, in this matter none of the claims of the Appellant falls under the said Constitutional provisions. The trial judge was therefore right to have dismissed the claims of the Appellant.
For the above reasons and more especially the fuller reasons of my learned brother I. G. Mbaba, JCA. I agree that the appeal, lacking in merit, should be, and is hereby dismissed. I abide by the order as to cost.
24
Appearances:
UWAKWE ISRAEL, ESQ. For Appellant(s)
CHARLES C. ASUGHA, ESQ. For Respondent(s)
