MEHTA v. IGP & ANOR (2022)

MEHTA v. IGP & ANOR

(2022)LCN/17082(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, May 06, 2022

CA/K/513/2017

Before Our Lordships:

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Boloukuromo Moses Ugo Justice of the Court of Appeal

Usman Alhaji Musale Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

MR. PRADEEP KUMAR MEHTA APPELANT(S)

And

1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 2. MR. IBRAHIM ABUBAKAR MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

THE POSITION OF LAW ON WHAT CONSTITUTES TRITE PRINCIPLES OF LAW

That constitutes the trite principles of law, governing argument of appeals in this Court and in the Apex Court. See the cases of Sheidu Vs The State (2014) LPELR-23018 (SC); (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt.1429) 1; Ukwuoma Vs Okafor (2016) LPELR-41505 (CA); Fajebe & Anor Vs Opanuga (2019) LPELR-46348 (SC); North West Petroleum & Gas Co. Ltd & Anor Vs Prince Chigozie Iloh & Ors (2021) LPELR-55509 (CA).” Of course, the law is trite, that though two or more grounds of appeal can be combined to generate an issue for determination of appeal, one ground of appeal cannot be split to donate different issues for determination of appeal. See again the case of North West Petroleum & Gas Co. Ltd & Anor Vs Iloh & Ors (2021) LPELR-55509 CA: “… he (Counsel) split many of the grounds of appeal to donate several issues for determination, in a manner quite offensive to the rules and procedure for arguing appeals. The law is trite, that whereas Appellant can combine two or more grounds of appeal to generate an issue for the determination of appeal, he cannot split a ground of appeal to raise several issues for determination of the appeal. That is to say, that the moment an Appellant has distilled an issue from a given ground(s) of appeal, he cannot, thereafter, use the said (used) ground(s) of appeal to generate another issue for the determination of the appeal, as that would amount to the proliferation of issues. See the case of A.G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd and Ors (2019) LPELR-47579 (CA), Phillips Vs Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd (2012) LPELR-9718 (SC), Ugo Vs Obiekwe (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 11) 41. Of course, it is trite, that once Appellant has distilled an issue for determination of appeal from a given ground(s) of appeal, that ground (or grounds) of appeal ceases to be available to donate another issue for determination of the appeal. In that case of A. G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd & Ors (supra).”
See also the case of Society BIC. SA. & Ors Vs Charzin Industries Ltd (2014) LPELR – 22256 (SC), NACB Ltd Vs Ozoemelam (2016) LPELR – 26051 (SC). And in the case of Nabegu Co. Nig. Ltd Vs AMCON & Ors (2022) LPELR – 57294 CA, delivered on 4/4/2022, it was held:
“It is also the law that Appellant cannot split a ground of appeal, to generate two or more issues for determination, and cannot lump many issues for determination, together, purporting same to distill from several grounds of appeal, also lumped together. Appellant has to clearly specify which issue is distilled from which ground of appeal, before he can proceed to argue the issues, either singly or together.” PER MBABA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT FINDINGS OF THE COURT NOT APPEALED AGAINST REMAINS BINDING ON PARTIES

By law, a finding and/or holding of Court, not appealed against, remains binding and conclusive. See the case of Ezike & Anor Vs Egbuaba (2019) LPELR – 46526 (SC):
“The law is trite, that where a party has not challenged a finding by way of appeal, that finding stands. See Dabo Vs Abdullahi (2005) 2 SC (Pt.1) 75, (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt.923) 181; Leventis Technical Vs Petro Jessica (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt.605) 45; (1999) 4 SCNJ 121 at 127.”
See also the case of UBA Plc Vs Halilu & Anor (2022) LPELR – 57096 (CA), where we held:
“I do not see how I can fault the above findings and decision of the trial Court, especially as Appellant never raised any appeal against those findings and holding. See the case of Opara Vs Dowel-Schlumberger Nig. Ltd & Anor (2006) LPELR – 2746 SC, where the Supreme Court held: “It is also settled law that where a party fails to appeal against a finding of the trial Court or the Court of Appeal, he cannot be heard to question the finding on appeal to the Supreme Court, the essence of an appeal being to have an opportunity to have one’s suit re-examined before a higher Court. In effect the failure of the appellant to appeal against the decision of the trial Court refusing an order of specific performance is that that decision remains binding and conclusive between the parties – see Alakija v. Abdulai (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 552) 1 at 4. In Ndiwe v. Okocha (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 252) 129 at 139-140 it was held by this Court that where the trial Court makes a finding of fact on a specific issue before it, such an issue should be raised as a substantive ground of appeal by the appellant who is challenging the finding of fact and it cannot be covered under the omnibus ground of appeal.” PER MBABA, J.C.A.

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the judgment of the Federal High Court, Kano, in FHC/KN/CS/33/2017, delivered on 20th June, 2017 by Hon. Justice J.K. Dagat, wherein the trial Court granted the reliefs sought by the Applicant in the Fundamental Rights action, fought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules.

At the trial Court, Applicant (now 2nd Respondent) had sought the following reliefs:
(1) A declaration that the arrest of the Applicant by the officers/agents/subordinates of the monitoring unit of the 1st Respondent on the 15th day of February, 2017 upon an alleged complaint of the 2nd Respondent through his Counsel against the Applicant on allegation of fraud with regard to the running of Veee Oil Resources Limited which this Honourable Court has restrained the 2nd Respondent from interfering with the running and control of the affairs of Vee Oil Resources Limited pending the determination of the substantive suit before the Court ‘7’ Federal High Court, Abuja, F.C.T made on 7th day of July, 2015, violates the Applicant’s Fundamental Rights to dignity of his person, personal liberty, presumption of innocence and freedom of movement guaranteed and protected under Sections 34, 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) and Articles 5, 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A.9 LFN 2004.
(2) A declaration that continuous detention of the Applicant by the officers/agents/subordinates of the 1st Respondent at force CID Headquarters, Abuja of the 1st Respondent, since on 15th day of February, 2017 on the prompting of the 2nd Respondent, without any prior investigation and/or charging him to Court for any substantive offence since the 15th day of February, 2017 till now, is a gross violation of the Applicant’s right to dignity of his person, personal liberty, right to fair hearing and right to freedom of movement as enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, (as amended) under the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A.9 LFN 2004.
(3) A declaration that the 1st Respondent has no statutory powers to advance, to arrest and detain a responsible citizen like the Applicant on mere complaint of the 2nd Respondent without any prior investigation or inquiry is an affront to the Applicant’s right to dignity of his person, personal liberty, right to fair hearing and right to freedom of movement.
(4) An Order for the enforcement of the applicant’s fundamental rights to dignity of his person, personal liberty, right to fair hearing and right to freedom of movement and for further reasonable apprehension or likelihood of same being further breached by the respondents, particularly the agents/subordinates of the 1st Respondent.
(5) An Order of this Honourable Court restraining the Respondents particularly the 1st Respondent by himself or through the instrumentality of his agents, servants, subordinates, privies or assigns by whatever name described or called, from further arresting and taking the Applicant outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, with a view to further detain the Applicant, in relation to the spurious allegation or complaint of the 2nd Respondent, either made directly by the 2nd Respondent or through any other person or body over a matter he is ordered to refrain from.
(6) An Order of Perpetual Injunction Restraining the 1st Respondent by himself, servants, agents, subordinates, privies or assigns by whatever name called or described and whatever manner they may come, from further arrest, detention, intimidation, harassment and degrading treatment of the Applicant in relation to unverified and manipulated complaint made directly or indirectly by the 2nd Respondent in the presence of a subsisting Court order.
(7) General damages in the sum of N100,000,000 (Hundred Million Naira only) against the 2nd Respondent for unlawfully setting the machinery of the 1st Respondent into action, when in fact he is not allowed to do so.
(8) And for such Order or Further orders this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

The reliefs were supported by a statement as stipulated by law and affidavit and exhibits and grounds for seeking the reliefs.

The 2nd Respondent (now Appellant) filed a Counter-Affidavit on 22/3/2017 to contest the claims of the Applicant. The 1st Respondent (now 2nd Respondent) did not file any Counter-Affidavit. After hearing the case and considering the affidavit evidence and addresses of Counsel, the trial Court held for the Applicant (now 1st Respondent).
The Court said:
“Consequent upon the arrest of the Applicant, he has since then been detained by the officers of the 1st Respondent, despite an order of this Court made on the 7th day of July, 2015, restraining the 2nd Respondent and two others, from further interference with the running and control of Veee Oil Resources ltd, pending the determination of the Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/278/2015 (Exhibit A). Applicant aggrieved at his continual detention by the 1st Respondent has brought this Application for the enforcement of his fundamental rights…
Now, the question is not whether or not the 2nd Respondent mentioned the name of the Applicant in his Petition to the 1st Respondent; it is not also a question as to whether or not the 2nd Respondent interfered with the 1st Respondent in the course of its duty as regards the arrest and detention of the Applicant, the relevant point in issue is that the 2nd Respondent flagrantly disobeyed the order of the Court made on the 7th day of July, 2015, restraining him from further interference with the running and control of the company’s business pending the determination of the substantive suit. Courts do not make Orders in vain, they are meant to be obeyed…” (Pages 118 and 129 – 130 of the Records)
The trial Court continued:
“From the forgoing consideration, it is my considered view that the Applicant has placed sufficient facts before me, showing that, indeed, his fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution, were violated by the 2nd Respondent and Officers of the 1st Respondent, who were used as stooges to perpetrate the intention of the 2nd Respondent. Despite service on the 1st Respondent of the originating processes and hearing notices, they did not deem it fit to file any process…”
The application succeeds in part and I hereby make the following orders…” (Pages 132 – 133 and 134 – 135 of the Records of Appeal)

That is the decision Appellant appealed against in this Appeal, as per the Notice of Appeal, filed on 19/9/17, on Pages 138 to 141 of the Records. Appellant filed his brief of arguments on 16/11/2017, which was deemed duly filed on 1/3/2018. He distilled two (2) Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether the trial Court misdirected itself, when it based its decision on the Court order in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/278/2015.
(2) Whether there was any basis for the award of the sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira only) against the Appellant by the trial Court.

In the Notice and grounds of Appeal, Appellant had formulated a lone ground of Appeal, with several particulars. The grounds of Appeal was:
“The Learned trial Judge erred in law when he awarded the sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) against Appellant.”

He listed several Paragraphs – (a) to (k), to support the ground, including Paragraphs (c) (d) (e) (h) and (j) which stated, as follows:
(c) The 1st Respondent in his application for enforcement of his fundamental human right also prayed the Court amongst other reliefs to award general damages in the sum of N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) against the Applicant;
(d) That Honourable Justice J.K. Dagat of the Federal High Court sitting at Kano State, heard the matter and awarded the sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) against the Appellant for unlawfully setting the machinery of the 2nd Respondent into motion, when in fact he is not allowed to do so;
(e) That there was no basis for the award of the said sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) against the Appellant;
(g) That the Appellant’s Counter-affidavit in opposition to the 1st Respondent’s motion on notice dated the 20th day of February, 2017 was not considered by the Court;
(h) That the Honourable Court misdirected itself, when it based its decision on an already abated order in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/278/2015;
(j) That the Court has not exercised its discretion judiciously and judicially in awarding the sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) against the Appellant…”

As can be seen from the above, Appellant’s Counsel erred greatly in the way he distilled issues from the ground of appeal, and in the way he mixed up several issues of law in the Paragraphs of the one ground of appeal. Appellant cannot split the one ground of Appeal to generate two issues for the determination of the appeal. This point has been stated several times in a number of decisions of this Court and of the Apex Court. See the recent decision of this Court in the case of Vinylon Footwear Industry Ltd Vs Dabi (2021) LPELR – 56142 (CA), where this Court held:
“Appellant’s Counsel had distilled Appellant’s issue 2 from grounds 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the appeal, but, surprisingly and erroneously, distilled the issue 4 from the same grounds 6 and 7 of the appeal. That cannot be done; having earlier used the said grounds 6 and 7 (with other grounds) to distill issue 2, the said grounds ceased to be available to give birth to any other Issue for the determination of the appeal. See the recent decision of this Court Union Bank of Nigeria Plc Vs Anthony Ejike Mbaka & Ors: CA/E/296/2017, delivered on 29/10/2021, where we held: “Appellant’s Counsel goofed, again, when he distilled the issue 2 from grounds 1, 4 and 6 of the Amended Notice of Appeal, only to also distill the Issue 4 from the same ground 6! And, while arguing the said issue 2, Appellant’s Counsel, in the brief, claimed to have distilled same issue 2 from grounds 1 and 2 of the Amended Notice of Appeal!… the issue 3, which would have been thought saved or spared to host this appeal, cannot also be available to argue the appeal, as Appellant, again, erred when its Counsel stated that issue 3 derived from grounds 4 & 5 of the Appeal!… Appeal can only be argued on issue or issues, donated for the determination of the appeal, and the issues must be properly related to the grounds of the appeal, which must, in turn, flow from or relate to the ratio decidendi of the judgment, appeal against. That constitutes the trite principles of law, governing argument of appeals in this Court and in the Apex Court. See the cases of Sheidu Vs The State (2014) LPELR-23018 (SC); (2014) 15 NWLR (Pt.1429) 1; Ukwuoma Vs Okafor (2016) LPELR-41505 (CA); Fajebe & Anor Vs Opanuga (2019) LPELR-46348 (SC); North West Petroleum & Gas Co. Ltd & Anor Vs Prince Chigozie Iloh & Ors (2021) LPELR-55509 (CA).” Of course, the law is trite, that though two or more grounds of appeal can be combined to generate an issue for determination of appeal, one ground of appeal cannot be split to donate different issues for determination of appeal. See again the case of North West Petroleum & Gas Co. Ltd & Anor Vs Iloh & Ors (2021) LPELR-55509 CA: “… he (Counsel) split many of the grounds of appeal to donate several issues for determination, in a manner quite offensive to the rules and procedure for arguing appeals. The law is trite, that whereas Appellant can combine two or more grounds of appeal to generate an issue for the determination of appeal, he cannot split a ground of appeal to raise several issues for determination of the appeal. That is to say, that the moment an Appellant has distilled an issue from a given ground(s) of appeal, he cannot, thereafter, use the said (used) ground(s) of appeal to generate another issue for the determination of the appeal, as that would amount to the proliferation of issues. See the case of A.G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd and Ors (2019) LPELR-47579 (CA), Phillips Vs Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Co. Ltd (2012) LPELR-9718 (SC), Ugo Vs Obiekwe (1989) 2 SC (Pt. 11) 41. Of course, it is trite, that once Appellant has distilled an issue for determination of appeal from a given ground(s) of appeal, that ground (or grounds) of appeal ceases to be available to donate another issue for determination of the appeal. In that case of A. G. Imo State Vs Imo Rubber Estate Ltd & Ors (supra).”
See also the case of Society BIC. SA. & Ors Vs Charzin Industries Ltd (2014) LPELR – 22256 (SC), NACB Ltd Vs Ozoemelam (2016) LPELR – 26051 (SC). And in the case of Nabegu Co. Nig. Ltd Vs AMCON & Ors (2022) LPELR – 57294 CA, delivered on 4/4/2022, it was held:
“It is also the law that Appellant cannot split a ground of appeal, to generate two or more issues for determination, and cannot lump many issues for determination, together, purporting same to distill from several grounds of appeal, also lumped together. Appellant has to clearly specify which issue is distilled from which ground of appeal, before he can proceed to argue the issues, either singly or together.”
This appeal is therefore not worth any further consideration, in the circumstance of the defect of distilling two Issues from a single ground of appeal. The appeal is therefore struck out.

Even if the appeal were to be considered on the merits on the issue 1, which strongly questioned the award of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) to the Applicant (1st Respondent) for the breach of his fundamental rights, (as the ground of appeal appeared to have centred on that award to the 1st Respondent), I think Appellant would still fail to defeat the decision of the trial Court, as Appellant did not appeal against the finding of the trial Court that Appellant violated the fundamental rights of Applicant (1st Respondent) by causing his arrest and detention, despite the pending order of the Court, restraining him (Appellant) from interfering with the running of the Company – Veee Oil Resources Ltd, pending the date of determination of the substantive Suit before the Federal High Court, Abuja, in FHC/ABJ/CS/278/2015. Apart from constituting infringement of Appellant’s fundamental right, the trial Court noted that such act of impunity was also a flagrant disobedience of the Court Order.

By law, a finding and/or holding of Court, not appealed against, remains binding and conclusive. See the case of Ezike & Anor Vs Egbuaba (2019) LPELR – 46526 (SC):
“The law is trite, that where a party has not challenged a finding by way of appeal, that finding stands. See Dabo Vs Abdullahi (2005) 2 SC (Pt.1) 75, (2005) 7 NWLR (Pt.923) 181; Leventis Technical Vs Petro Jessica (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt.605) 45; (1999) 4 SCNJ 121 at 127.”
See also the case of UBA Plc Vs Halilu & Anor (2022) LPELR – 57096 (CA), where we held:
“I do not see how I can fault the above findings and decision of the trial Court, especially as Appellant never raised any appeal against those findings and holding. See the case of Opara Vs Dowel-Schlumberger Nig. Ltd & Anor (2006) LPELR – 2746 SC, where the Supreme Court held: “It is also settled law that where a party fails to appeal against a finding of the trial Court or the Court of Appeal, he cannot be heard to question the finding on appeal to the Supreme Court, the essence of an appeal being to have an opportunity to have one’s suit re-examined before a higher Court. In effect the failure of the appellant to appeal against the decision of the trial Court refusing an order of specific performance is that that decision remains binding and conclusive between the parties – see Alakija v. Abdulai (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 552) 1 at 4. In Ndiwe v. Okocha (1992) 7 NWLR (Pt. 252) 129 at 139-140 it was held by this Court that where the trial Court makes a finding of fact on a specific issue before it, such an issue should be raised as a substantive ground of appeal by the appellant who is challenging the finding of fact and it cannot be covered under the omnibus ground of appeal.”

It should also be appreciated that, when it comes to award of damages, the trial Court has unfettered discretion to determine the quantum, once the defendant is found liable. Appellant was held liable for breach of the Applicant’s fundamental rights, and so the complaint by Appellant’s Counsel that there was no basis for the award of the N300,000.00 (out of the N100,000,000.00 sought) appears infantile. How can Counsel say there was no basis for the award, when the Court had clearly stated the basis and had awarded a little fraction of what was even demanded?
As earlier, stated, damages accrue, consequentially, once a Court finds a defendant liable to a claim, and such damages need not even be pleaded or proved, in evidence, especially in fundamental right action and trespass. The trial Court is only required to exercise its discretion judiciously and judicially. See the case of African Petroleum Plc Vs Aborisade & Anor (2013) LPELR – 20362 (CA), where my lord Aboki JCA (as he then was said:
“General damages unlike specific damages are not quantifiable, it is purely at the discretion of the trial Court which heard all the parties and is in a better position to easily determined what would amount to a reasonable compensation to a party entitle to such an award. See Framo Nig. Ltd. v. Shaibu Dawodu (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 281) 372. The discretionary power of the trial Court must be exercised judicially and judiciously. The trial Court in making its award, must consider the surrounding circumstances of the case before it. See Salau v. Araba (2004) All FWLR (pt. 204) page 88. The trial Court must also take judicial notice of the decline in the purchasing power of the naira over the years and the economic reality of the country, while making an award. See ASESA v. Ekweme (2001) 10 NWLR (pt. 720) page 97.”
See also the case of G.K.F. Investment Nig. Ltd Vs Nigeria Telecommunications Plc (2009) LPELR – 1294 SC; British Airways Vs Atoyebi (2014) LPELR – 23120 (SC) and Esabunor & Anor Vs Faweya & Ors (2019) LPELR – 46961 SC, where it was held:
“The general rule is that damages awarded by trial Court is based on Evidence before the Court…”

In this case, the trial Court had articulated the evidence before it on which it based the award of damages. There would, therefore, be no merit in the appeal. I have already held that the appeal has no competence by reason of the distilling of two issues from the one ground of appeal. It is accordingly struck out.

Parties are to bear their respective costs.

BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.: I had a preview of the judgment of my learned brother, Ita G. Mbaba, JCA. I agree with his conclusion and hereby also strike out the appeal.

I abide by the order as to costs as contained in the lead judgment.

USMAN ALHAJI MUSALE, J.C.A.: I have read before now in draft the lead judgment delivered by my learned brother, ITA G. MBABA, JCA. I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached by him and adopt same as mine.