JMG LTD v. ISRAEL & ORS (2020)

JMG LTD v. ISRAEL & ORS

(2020)LCN/14182(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(PORT HARCOURT JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, May 21, 2020

CA/PH/FHR/421/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Ibrahim Mohammed Musa Saulawa Justice of the Court of Appeal

Tunde Oyebanji Awotoye Justice of the Court of Appeal

Cordelia Ifeoma Jombo-Ofo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

JMG LIMITED APPELANT(S)

And

1. MRS. VIVIAN ABASI ISRAEL 2. INSPECTOR OTHNIEN ELIJAH 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, RIVERS STATE 4. NIGERIA POLICE FORCE RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHAT IS AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION?

It is trite, that an issue is invariably the question that arises in the dispute between the parties. Usually, it’s a question, a preposition of law or fact in dispute the determination of which would ultimately affect (resolve) the appeal, one way or the other. Thus, an ideal issue ought to be characteristically succinct, precise, weighty and compelling enough to enable the Court base its decision thereupon in favour of the party. It was aptly reiterated by this Court over a decade ago that:
What counsel should argue are normally the issues raised or formulated in the brief. The grounds are not argued as such. However, such issues must relate to the grounds of appeal.
See EGBUTA VS. ONUNA (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1042); (2007) LPELR – CA/PH/29/99 Per Saulawa, JCA @ 11 Paragraphs F – G; ANIMASHAUN VS. UCH (1996) 10 NWLR (Pt. 476) 65; DADA VS. DOSUNMU (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1010) 134 at 165; et al. What is more, its aptly reiterated in EGBUTA VS. ONUNA (supra):
It is also trite that issues for determination must be precise and devoid of irrelevant complexity and ambiguity for easy comprehension of the matters to be adjudicated upon. See GUDA VS. KITTA (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 629) 21.
Per Saulawa, JCA at 24 Paragraph A. PER SAULAWA, J.C.A.

PLACEMENT OF BURDEN OF PROOF IN REGARDS TO A CLAIM FOR UNLAWFUL ARREST AND DETENTION

Invariably, the misconception of law by parties in regards to unlawful arrest and detention borders on misplacement of burden of proof. Indeed, it is trite that in a claim for unlawful arrest and detention, the claimant squarely shoulders the onerous burden of not only establishing that the defendant merely made a report against him, he must equally plead and prove that there was no reasonable and probable cause for making such a report. See EMERE VS. ANACHUNA (2018) LPELR – CA/E/34/2012 at 16 – 17 Paragraphs F – A; SPDC VS. PESSU (2014) LPELR – CA/B/356/2006 at 97 Paragraphs A – D; GUSAU VS. UMEZURIKE (2012) 28 WRN 111 at 140 – 141.
It is equally trite, that where a party to an action alleges that he had unlawfully been arrested and detained by another, the burden of proving the legality, constitutionality and justifiability of the arrest rests squarely on the party who effected the arrest and detention. See COP VS. ONDO STATE VS. OBOLO (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 120) 130; ABIOLA VS. FRN (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 405) 1; MADIEBO VS. NWANKWO (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 748) 283; (2001) LPELR – CA/L/51/98 at 8 Paragraphs B – E. PER SAULAWA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT AN AFFIDAVIT IS A DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF FACTS DEPOSED TO

It is trite that by the very nature thereof, all affidavit is a factual statement which the maker or deponent swears to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. It is thus a documentary evidence of the facts deposed to therein. See JOSIEN HOLDING LTD VS. LORNAMEAD LTD (1995) 1 NWLR (pt.371) 254 @ 265; BUSARI VS. OSENI (1992) 4 (NWLR) (pt.237) 557; ZENITH BANK PLC VS. BANKOLANS INV. LTD (2011) LPELR-9064 (CA) @ 34-35 Paragraphs G-B.

WHETHER OR NOT AN AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE DEEMED UNCHALLANGED MUST BE COGENT AND SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN AN APPLICANT’S CASE

It is trite that any unchallenged and uncontradicted facts which are deemed admitted by the adversary must be capable of proving and supporting the Applicant relying on said facts. That is to say the affidavit evidence deemed unchallenged must be cogent and sufficient enough to sustain the Applicant’s case. See OGOEJEOFO VS. OGOEJEOFO (2006) 1 SCM 113; ALAGBE VS. ABIMBOLA (1978) 2 SC 39 @ 40; EGBUNA VS. EGBUNA (1989) 2 NWLR (pt. 106) 773 @ 777; INEGBEDION VS.DR. SELO-OJEMEN (2013) LPELR – 19769 (SC). PER SAULAWA, J.C.A.

JOINDER OF ISSUES OF FACT IN A COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

Indeed, the law is settled that in order to join issue of fact in a counter affidavit, there must be a proper traverse, which is made either by a specific denial or non-admission either expressly or by necessary implication. See LEWIS & PEAT (NIR) LTD VS. AKHIMIEN (1976) 1 ALL NLR 460.
The hallmark of the foregoing proposition of law, is that a party wishing to deny an averment must do so clearly and devoid of any ambiguity so that the adversary and the Court would have no doubt as to he is denying or not admitting. See AG ANAMBRA VS. ONUSELOGU ENT. LTD (1987) NWLR (pt. 66) @ 547. PER SAULAWA, J.C.A.

IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The instant appeal is a natural fall-out of the judgment of the Rivers State High Court, delivered on June 18, 2018 in Suit No. PHC/500/2018. By the judgment in question, the Court below coram C. Nwogu, J., awarded Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00) damages in favour of the 1st Respondent against the Appellant and the 2nd – 4th Respondents, respectively.

BACK GROUND FACTS
The genesis of the instant appeal is traceable to the February 21, 2018. That was the day the 1st Respondent’s counsel filed in the Court below a motion on notice thereby seeking some declaratory and injunctive reliefs:
1. A DECLARATION that the arrest and detention of the Applicant from the 15th of January, 2018 to the 18th of January, 2018 by the 2nd Respondent serving under the 3rd and 4th Respondents on the instruction, direction and instigation of the 1st Respondent is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and a gross violation of the Applicant’s Rights to Personal Liberty and Freedom of Movement as respectively guaranteed under Sections 35 and

41 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Articles 6 and 12(1) of the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
2. A DECLARATION that the threat to further arrest and detain the Applicant by the 2nd – 4th Respondents on the instruction, direction and instigation on the 1st Respondent is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and a gross violation of the 1st Applicant’s Rights to Personal Liberty and Freedom of Movement as respectively guaranteed under Sections 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Articles 6 and 12(1) of the Africa Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
3. AN ORDER directing the Respondents to jointly and severally pay the Applicant the sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira only) damages for the unlawful arrest and detention of the Applicant.
4. AN ORDER restraining the Respondents whether acting by themselves, or through other police officers, servants, agents, privies or whomsoever from further arresting, detaining, harassing or intimidating the Applicant.
<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

The application is predicated upon two grounds:
1. The arrest and detention of the Applicant by the 2nd Respondent and his team of police officers serving under the 3rd and 4th Respondents from the 15/01/2018 to 18/01/2018 without an order of Court is illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and a gross violation of his Rights to Personal Liberty and Freedom of Movement as respectively guaranteed under Sections 35 and 41 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
2. The 1st Respondent instigated the 2nd Respondent and his team of police officers serving under the 3rd and 4th Respondents to unlawfully breach the Applicant’s rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement after the police officers of Trans Amadi Industrial Layout found nothing incriminating against the Applicant. The 1st Respondent went beyond lodging a petition to the police. They instigated the police to arrest and detain the Applicant. The Respondents arrested and detained the Applicant without investigation. The said arrest was unjustifiable. They have concluded plans to further arrest and incarcerate the Applicant.

In support of the said application was an 18 paragraphed affidavit, deposed to personally

by the 1st Respondent.

In opposing the application in question, the Appellant (1st Respondent) filed a 37 paragraphed counter affidavit dated 15/05/2018, deposed thereto by Daniel Ikechukwu Nwichi, the Appellant’s Human Resource Manager.

At the conclusion of the hearing of the application, the Court below delivered the vexed judgment on the said 08/06/18, to the conclusive effect:
I am satisfied from the affidavit evidence before me that the 1st Respondent was actuated with bad faith in instigating the arrest and detention of the Applicant for the second time using the instrument of 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents…
The second arrest and detention of the Appellant by the Respondents for 3 days – 15th to 18th of January 2018 constitutes a serious infraction of the fundamental rights of the Applicant.
The 1st Respondent’s capability is hinged as its bad faith to punish the Applicant when the Trans Amadi Police Station has found nothing incriminating against the Applicant…
In the sum, I find merit in the Applicant’s application and same succeeds. I enter judgment in favour of the Applicant…

The Appellant’s notice of appeal, dated 18/07/18 but filed on the 26/07/18, is predicated upon three grounds. The appeal having been entered on 25/10/18, the parties proceeded to file the respective briefs of argument thereof. On 16/03/20, when the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel addressed the Court and adopted their argument contained therein, thus resulting in reserving judgment.

The Appellant’s brief of argument, settled by Paul Nwankwoala Esq., on 07/12/18, spans a total of 17 pages. At page 3 thereof, a sole issue has been raised for determination:
Whether in law, liability or damages attaches to a citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who with reasonable cause reported the commission of a suspected crime to the law enforcement agents without coercion, inducement or instigation for the arrest of the suspect or who is arrested in the course of investigation of the report made without coercion, inducement or instigation by the citizen?

The sole issue has been extensively argued at pages 3 – 14 of the said brief. Without much ado, the Court is urged to answer the sole issue in the negative. It is submitted in

the main, that a citizen who merely reports to the police of the commission of a crime which he reasonably suspected cannot be held liable for the detention and/or arrest of the suspect, provided he never coerced, induced or instigated the arrest and or detention. See YUSUF UMAR VS. ALHAJI AUWALU ABDULSALAM (2001) 1 CHR 413 @ 419 paragraphs A-C; UDO VS. ESSIEN (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt.1451) @ 103 paragraphs F-G, et al.

Three ancillary questions have been posed that allegedly would crystallize the propriety of the Appellant’s liability pronounced by the Court below.

The first ancillary question is to the effect of whether the Appellant had no reasonable belief in the report made to the police about the sales monies allegedly accounted for by Mr. Tanika Nwinee which said report led to the invitation of the 1st Respondent by the 2nd – 4th Respondents.

Answering the Ancillary Question in the affirmative, the Appellant referred to paragraph 6 of the 1st Respondent affidavit (pages 6 – 9 of the Record), vis-a-vis paragraph 15 of Appellant’s counter affidavit (pages 27 – 31 of the Record) and paragraph 3(a) of the 1st

Respondent’s Further Affidavit, to the effect that the Appellant’s monies were missing, were frontally conceded by the 1st Respondent.

The second Ancillary Question is to the effect of whether there is evidence in the Records, showing the Appellant coerced, induced or instigated the 2nd – 4th Respondent’s for the arrest and detention of the 1st Respondent from 15th – 18th January, 2018 as alleged by the 1st Respondent and pronounced by the Court below.

In answering the ancillary question in the negative, it is submitted that the Appellant’s counter affidavit (pages 27 – 31 of the Record) was to the effect that the Appellant has credibly denied the said allegation, and urged the strictest proof thereof by the 1st Respondent. The Court is urged to so hold.

The third Ancillary Question is to the effect of whether there is a police investigation report in the Record showing that the 1st Respondent was not implicated in the report made to the police about the monies from sales of her products uncounted for by Mr. Tanika Nwinee, which said report led to the invitation of the 1st Respondent by the police.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

The Court is urged to so hold.

Paragraphs 3.9 – 4.9 (at pages 9 – 14) of the Appellant’s brief deal specifically with the sole issue raised by the Appellant. Most particularly, the Court is urged upon to hold that no liability or damages could attach to the Appellant who as a citizen, made a complaint to the police in respect of the suspected crimes, the investigation of which linked the 1st Respondent thereto. See Fajemirokun vs. CBN Ltd (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) SC 588 at 600 paragraphs B – C 606 paragraphs A – E; Udo vs. Essien (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1451) at 103 paragraphs F – G.

According to the Appellant, there is no evidence in the records to show that the Appellant had unduly influenced, coerced, induced or interfered with the investigations of the report it made to the 2nd – 4th Respondents. That there is no evidence in the records to show that the Appellant’s report to the 2nd – 4th Respondents was made without reasonable suspicion or belief therein, thus the 1st Respondent is not entitled to the judgment and damages granted thereto by the Court below as she failed to establish a breach of

the fundamental right thereof by the Appeal Court. Various authorities have been cited and duly relied thereupon in support of the argument, thereby urging upon the Court to resolve the sole issue in favour of the Appellant.

Contrariwise, the 1st Respondent’s brief, settled by A.A. Amadi Esq., on January 11, 2019 spans a total of 12 pages. At page 5 of the said brief, a sole issue has been couched:
Whether from the affidavit evidence of the parties, the 1st Respondent did not prove that she was unlawfully and maliciously arrested and detained by the 2nd – 4th Respondents at the instigation, direction and instruction of the Appellant (Grounds 1, 2 and 3).

It is submitted in the main, that for a party to be made liable for unlawful arrest and detention of another, it must be shown that he did more than just lodging a complaint. But that he in fact caused, participated, directed and influenced the arrest of the victim. See Obiegu vs. AG, Federation (2014) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1399) 171 at 205. Okonkwo vs. Ogbogu (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt. 449) 420 at 433 paragraph H.

It is further submitted, that the 1st Respondent has shown by paragraphs 7 and 10 of

the affidavit thereof, that the Appellant did not merely lodge a complaint, but instigated and influenced the 2nd – 4th Respondents, to unlawfully arrest and detain her.

It was argued, that paragraphs 6 and 19 of the counter affidavit are merely evasive and general, thus constitute an admission. See Atuchukwu vs. Adindu (2012) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1297) at 534; Bamgbegbin vs. Oriare (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) at 370; Atolagbe vs. Shorun (1985) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2) 360 at 367, AG Anambra State vs. Onuselogu Ent. Ltd (1987) NWLR (Pt. 66) 547.

Further argued, that the subsequent action of reporting the matter to the SIB Police Headquarters by the Appellant amounts to an abuse of process of law. This led to the arrest and detention of the 1st Respondent for 3 days, knowing that the 1st Respondent was exonerated by the Trans Amadi Division Police. See Diamond Bank Plc vs. Opara (2018) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 92 at 115 – 116 paragraphs F – E, 120 paragraphs C, E – F; Fajemirokun vs. CBN Ltd (2009) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1135) SC 588 at 600 paragraphs A – E.

It was posited, that the Appellant did not exhibit the formal complaint/petition it lodged

with the 2nd – 4th Respondents against the 1st Respondent. Therefore, the Appellant by its conduct has constituted and influenced the unlawful arrest and detention of the 1st Respondent for 3 days. See Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011, Chinokwe vs. Chinokwe (2010) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1208) 226.

The Court is urged to so hold, dismiss the appeal, and accordingly affirm the vexed judgment of the Court below.

I have had a course to critically, albeit dispassionately, peruse the briefs of argument of the respective learned counsel. It is obvious, the Appellant’s sole issue is apparently speculative in nature. Contrastively, however, the Respondents’ sole issue in my considered view, appears to be concise, direct and articulate. In the circumstance, I have deemed it expedient to adopt the 1st Respondent’s sole issue for the ultimate determination of this appeal.

The importance of an ideal brief of argument in adjudicatory process needs not be overemphasized. Undoubtedly, a good (ideal) brief of argument facilitates the decision making process of the Court. As once aptly pontificated by Nnaemeka-Agu, JCA: (as he then was) a

counsel’s brief is the best index of measurement of his competence and skill. See MANUAL OF BRIEF WRITING IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, CHAPTER 3 AT 13.

What is more, its aptly reiterated in EGBUTA VS. ONUNA (supra):
It is also trite that issues for determination must be precise and devoid of irrelevant complexity and ambiguity for easy comprehension of the matters to be adjudicated upon. See GUDA VS. KITTA (1999) 12 NWLR (Pt. 629) 21.
Per Saulawa, JCA at 24 Paragraph A.

DETERMINATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT’S SOLE ISSUE
Instructively, the sole issue couched in the 1st Respondent’s brief raises the very pertinent question of whether from the affidavit evidence of the parties, the 1st Respondent did not prove that she was unlawfully and maliciously arrested and detained by the 2nd – 4th Respondents at the instigation, direction and instruction of the Appellant. The sole issue is distilled from the three grounds of appeal (1, 2 & 3).

Invariably, the misconception of law by parties in regards to unlawful arrest and detention borders on misplacement of burden of proof. Indeed, it is trite that in a claim for unlawful arrest and detention, the claimant squarely shoulders the onerous burden of not only establishing that the defendant merely made a report against him, he must equally plead and prove that there was no reasonable and probable cause for

making such a report. See EMERE VS. ANACHUNA (2018) LPELR – CA/E/34/2012 at 16 – 17 Paragraphs F – A; SPDC VS. PESSU (2014) LPELR – CA/B/356/2006 at 97 Paragraphs A – D; GUSAU VS. UMEZURIKE (2012) 28 WRN 111 at 140 – 141.
It is equally trite, that where a party to an action alleges that he had unlawfully been arrested and detained by another, the burden of proving the legality, constitutionality and justifiability of the arrest rests squarely on the party who effected the arrest and detention. See COP VS. ONDO STATE VS. OBOLO (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 120) 130; ABIOLA VS. FRN (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt. 405) 1; MADIEBO VS. NWANKWO (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt. 748) 283; (2001) LPELR – CA/L/51/98 at 8 Paragraphs B – E.

In the instant case, with a view to establishing the facts that the Appellant instigated, influenced and induced the 2nd – 4th Respondents to arrest and detain her, the 1st Respondent deposed in the affidavit in support of the motion on notice in question the following salient averments:
7. On 23/11/2017, the first Respondent caused the police officers of Trans Amadi Divisional Police, Port Harcourt to arrest and

detain me. I handed over the copies of my cash invoices to the police. At the end of police interrogation and after a review of my cash invoices, I was released on bail in the evening of that day.
10. When I reported at the Trans Amadi police station as directed by the Investigating Police Officer, the police in their finding stated that they found nothing incriminating against me. It was then that the Head of Human Resources Management of the 1st Respondent vowed to frustrate me in his official capacity. He further revealed to me at the station that I caused the 1st Respondent to issue him a query on why he restored Chioma Ezuma’s welfare package. He further threatened to use the office of the 3rd and 4th Respondents to incarcerate me in his official capacity as the Head of Human Resources Manager of the 1st Respondent. I thought he was joking!
11. The 1st Respondent acting through its Head of Human Resources Manager instigated the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents to arrest me again on the 14th of January, 2018. I was arrested and detained on the said 15th of January, 2018 till the 18th of January, 2018 by the 2nd Respondent serving under the 3rd

and 4th Respondents at the instigation of the 1st Respondent. I was exposed to mosquito bites and kept away from my family, especially my little baby who needed my motherly care and love.

Contrariwise, in reaction to the 1st Respondent’s averments in paragraphs 7, 10 and 11 of the said affidavit thereof, the Appellant deposed in the counter affidavit thereof thus:
16. That the 1st Respondent denies paragraph 7 of the Applicant’s supporting affidavit to the motion on Notice and in reply state that the following reasonable suspicion of crime by the Applicant in collaboration with others, the 1st Respondent on 23rd November, 2017 lodged the complaint against the Applicant in respect of the missing sum and products with the Divisional police Officer of Trans Amadi to enable investigation into the matter.
19. That the 1st Respondent denies paragraph 10 of the Applicant’s supporting affidavit for being untrue and unsubstantiated. The 1st Respondent hereby put the Applicant to strictest proof thereof.

The Court below in the course of the vexed judgment at pages 69 – 70 of the record has made some far reaching findings in regard

to the afore mentioned 1st Respondents affidavit and Appellants counter affidavit thus:
The Applicant and the 1st Respondent agree that the unaccounted money and missing proceeds of sale was reported to the Trans Amadi Police Station for investigation.
The Applicant in her paragraphs 7 and 10 of her supporting affidavit that the Trans Amadi police after investigating the matter found nothing incriminating against her and released her on bail the same day she was arrested. The Human resources manager of the 1st Respondent vowed to frustrate her using his official capacity.
The 1st Respondent’s denial of these allegations of facts in these paragraphs are not clear, specific but general. The denials are rather evasive and ambiguous…
The 1st Respondent putting the Applicant to the strictest proof in all its denials is not denial at all. It is rather an admission of the facts alleged.
The Court is persuaded to believe paragraphs 7 and 10 of Applicant’s supporting affidavit to be true and admitted by the 1st Respondent. The Trans Amadi police where the matter was first reported has made their finding that nothing was found

incriminating on the Applicant after the Applicant’s submission of her cash invoices which was received by the police before declaring that nothing incriminating was found on the Applicant.

In my considered view, the foregoing far-reaching findings of the Court below are cogent, unassailable and duly supported by the pleadings and evidence on record. It is trite that by the very nature thereof, all affidavit is a factual statement which the maker or deponent swears to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. It is thus a documentary evidence of the facts deposed to therein. See JOSIEN HOLDING LTD VS. LORNAMEAD LTD (1995) 1 NWLR (pt.371) 254 @ 265; BUSARI VS. OSENI (1992) 4 (NWLR) (pt.237) 557; ZENITH BANK PLC VS. BANKOLANS INV. LTD (2011) LPELR-9064 (CA) @ 34-35 Paragraphs G-B.

ALAGBE VS. ABIMBOLA (1978) 2 SC 39 @ 40; EGBUNA VS. EGBUNA (1989) 2 NWLR (pt. 106) 773 @ 777; INEGBEDION VS.DR. SELO-OJEMEN (2013) LPELR – 19769 (SC).

In the present case, I am of the paramount view, that the Court below was right in coming to the conclusion in the judgment that the Appellant’s denial in the counter affidavit thereof are not clear, specific but rather general ill nature. Indeed, the law is settled that in order to join issue of fact in a counter affidavit, there must be a proper traverse, which is made either by a specific denial or non-admission either expressly or by necessary implication. See LEWIS & PEAT (NIR) LTD VS. AKHIMIEN (1976) 1 ALL NLR 460.
The hallmark of the foregoing proposition of law, is that a party wishing to deny an averment must do so clearly and devoid of any ambiguity so that the adversary and the Court would have no doubt as to he is denying or not admitting. See AG ANAMBRA VS. ONUSELOGU ENT. LTD (1987) NWLR (pt. 66) @ 547.

In this instant case, it is the Appellant’s subsequent action of reporting the matter to the Special Investigation Bureau (SIB) of police headquarters Moscow road Port

Harcourt that led to the arrest and detention of the 1st Respondent for three (3) days. Yet, the Appellant knew that the 1st Respondent was investigated and exonerated and released on bail by the Trans Amadi Police Divisional Authority. As aptly posited by the 1st Respondent’s learned counsel, this is a clear case of bad faith. See DIAMOND BANK PLC VS. OPARA (2018) 7 NWLR (pt. 1617) 92 @ 115-116 Paragraphs F-E; C, E-F, respectively.

What is even more worrisome about the attitudinal disposition of the Appellant, is that the purported petition (complaint) lodged with the 2nd – 4th Respondents against the 1st Respondent was exhibited by the Appellant. Thus not surprisingly, the Court below came to the most inevitable conclusion in its findings at pages 70-71 of the Record:
The arrest and detention of the Applicant from the 15th to 18th day of January, 2018 by the 2nd Respondent under the instigation of the 1st Respondent contravenes S. 35(4) (5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and done mala fide. The 1st Respondent has not shown before this Court the formal complaint lodged against the Applicant to the

2nd – 4th Respondents to investigate. The 2nd Respondent is one man squad used by the 1st Respondent to harass and intimidate the Applicant.
The 1st Respondent has not shown before this Court the formal complaint and 3rd Respondent’s exonerating the said Chioma Ezuma of any involvement in the alleged crime which no such report was received in respect of the application as deposed to in the 1st Respondent’s paragraph 18 of his counter affidavit.
I am satisfied from the affidavit evidence before me that the 1st Respondent was actuated with bad faith in instigating the arrest and detention of the Applicant for the second time using the instrument of 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents.
The second arrest and detention of the Applicant by the Respondents for 3 days 15th – 18th days of January, 2018 constitutes a serious infraction of the fundamental rights of the Applicant.

As alluded to above, I can not agree more with the foregoing findings, of the Court below which said findings are aptly cogent, unassailable and duly supported by the pleadings and evidence on record. And I so hold.

In the circumstance, the sole issue ought to be answered

in the positive and same resolved against the Appellant, in favour of the Respondents.

Hence having effectively resolved the sole issue in question against the Appellant, the appeal resultantly fails and same is hereby dismissed by me.

Consequently, the Judgment of the High Court of Rivers State, holden at Port Harcourt, delivered by C. Nwogu J; on June 18, 2018, in suit NO: PHC/500/2018 is hereby affirmed.
The 1st Respondent shall be entitled to N50,000.00 costs against the Appellant.

TUNDE OYEBANJI AWOTOYE, J.C.A.: I had the privilege of reading the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother IBRAHIM MUHAMMAD MUSA SAULAWA, JCA. I am in full agreement with the well-considered reasons and the conclusion therein.
I have nothing more to add.

I also affirm the judgment of the Rivers State High Court holden at Port Harcourt delivered by C. Nwogu, J., on 18/6/2018 in Suit No. PHC/500/2018 and abide by the order to costs in the leading judgment.

CORDELIA IFEOMA JOMBO-OFO, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the lead judgment prepared by my learned brother IBRAHIM M.M. SAULAWA, JCA. I agree entirely with the

reasoning and conclusion reached therein.

The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed by me also. I thus affirm the judgment of the High Court of Rivers State sitting in Port Harcourt in Suit. No. PHC/500/2018 delivered on June 18, 2018 by C. Nwogu J.
I however award no costs.

Appearances:

NWANKWOALA, ESQ., with him, D.T. FUBARA, ESQ., and G.C. NWOKOGBA, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

V.C. MACFRIDO, ESQ., with him, O.O. AMADI, ESQ. – for the 1st set of Respondent

2ND SET OF RESPONDENTS SERVED For Respondent(s)