MUHAMMED v. NDLEA (2022)

MUHAMMED v. NDLEA

(2022)LCN/17144(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Wednesday, March 30, 2022

CA/A/143/2019

Before Our Lordships:

Stephen Jonah Adah Justice of the Court of Appeal

Elfrieda Oluwayemisi Williams-Dawodu Justice of the Court of Appeal

Danlami Zama Senchi Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

SANI MUHAMMED APPELANT(S)

And

NATIONAL DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

THE POSITION OF LAW ON GENERAL DAMAGES

General damages are basically losses that flow naturally from the adversary and it is presumed by law. General damages known to law are awarded by the trial Court to assuage a loss caused by an act of the adversary. See Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Cameroon Airlines v. Mr. Mike E. Otutuizu (2011) LPELR-827 (SC). They are always made as a claim at large. The award is quantified by what in the opinion of a reasonable person is considered adequate loss or inconvenience which flows naturally, as generally presumed by law from the act or conduct of the Defendant. In the case of Elf Petroleum Nig. Ltd v. Daniel C. Umah & Ors., (2018) LPELR-43600 (SC), the Supreme Court held that in the award of general damages, a wide spread power is given to the Court comparable to the exercise of discretion of the Court. It is enormous and therefore far-reaching and contrary to the contention held by the appellant herein. See the following authorities of Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd v. Hope Effiong Ekpo (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 865) 100 at 132, Dumez v. Ogboli (1972), 2 SC 196 and Waso v. Kaila (1978) 3 SC 21. PER ADAH, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE COURT CAN INTERFERE WITH THE AWARD OF DAMAGES BY THE TRIAL COURT

The law is firmly settled that the appellate Court does not upset an award of damages merely because it might itself have awarded a different figure; the appellant must show that the trial judge proceeded upon some wrong principles or that the award was entirely an erroneous estimate. See Uwa Printer (Nig.) Ltd v. Investment Trust Co. Ltd (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 92) 110; Obere v. Board of Management Eku Hospital (1978) 1 LRN 246 at 251; Ziks Press Ltd v. Ikoku (1951) 13 WACA 188 at 189 and Barau v. Cubitts (Nig.) Ltd (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 152) 630.
It follows therefore, that in every case where the assessment and quantum of general damages awarded is in issue, the appellate Court can only interfere if only it was premised by the trial Court on some wrong principles and assumptions.
PER ADAH, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON EXERCISING THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT

In the case of AFRICA PRUDENTIAL REGISTRARS PLC V SPDC WEST MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (2019) LPELR-50693, this Court held as follow:-
“And it is settled law beyond adventure that the exercise of the Court’s discretion must be done judicially and judiciously, which entails the application of legal principles to relevant facts and materials placed before it, in order to arrive at a just and equitable decision.”
See also ANACHEBE V IJEOMA & ORS (2014) LPELR-23181 (SC); UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V ASTRA BUILDERS (W.A) LTD (2010) LPELR-3383 (SC) and CO-OPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK (NIG) LTD V EMEKA OGWURU, (1993) 3 NWLR (pt 284) 630.
Thus, the Appellant at the lower Court have the onerous responsibility of presenting relevant facts that will persuade the Court to exercise its discretion in his favour to award such general damages to assuage the loss suffered by the Appellant. Thus, the Appellate Court will only interfere with a lower Court’s exercise of its discretion where such interference becomes absolutely necessary where the exercise was not done judicially and judiciously. See IKENTA BEST (NIG) LTD V A. G RIVERS STATE, (2008) LPELR-1476(SC).
PER SENCHI, J.C.A.

STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, delivered on 5th February, 2021 in Suit No. FHC/ABJ/CS/661/2018.

The appellant as applicant instituted this action at the trial Court and claimed against the Respondent as Defendant all the sundry reliefs as per the Originating Motion, thus –
​1. A DECLARATION that the detention of the Applicant by the Respondent in its custody from 8th day of May, 2018 to 14th day of June, 2018, when he was only arraigned in this Honourable Court in criminal proceedings, which was thirty-eight (38) days inclusive of the day of his arrest without bail, without Court order permitting the Respondent to detain him beyond constitutionally mandated reasonable time, without charging him to Court for trial as required and mandated by law and without affording him legal services/counsel of his choice constitutes a violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Sections 35 (1) (a- f), (4), (5) and (6) and 36 (1) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights as ratified by the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, 1990 and was therefore unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void.
2. AN ORDER of this Honorable Court compelling the Respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of Fifty million Naira (N50,000,000.00) being general and exemplary damages against it for breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to personal liberty, psychological trauma. Etc.
3. AN ORDER of this Honorable Court compelling the Respondent to offer and render a public apology to the applicant to be published in two widely circulated National Newspaper for unlawful breach of the constitutional rights of the applicant’s right to personal liberty.
4. And for such order or further order this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance(s).

There are 7 grounds propping up this Motion. These grounds are listed in the statement in support of the Application. The Motion is supported by an 8 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Hameed Ajibola Jimoh Esq., a counsel in the law firm of solicitors representing the applicant.

The Respondent filed a counter affidavit of 12 paragraphs in opposition to the applicants’ Motion. The Counter affidavit is deposed to by Rifkatu Phillip Barde, an Assistant litigation officer with the NDLEA FCT Command, Abuja.

At the close of trial, counsel adopted their written addresses and the trial Court rendered its Ruling on the 2nd November, 2018 and granted the reliefs of the appellant/applicant.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the appellant on the 30th November, 2018 filed his Notice of Appeal containing two grounds of appeal. The Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court on 25th February, 2019.

In line with the rules of this Court, the appellant filed his Appellant’s Brief of Argument on the 3rd April, 2019 and also proceeded to file a motion to hear the Appeal on the appellant’s Brief of Argument alone, which was granted by this Honourable Court. The Respondent did not file any brief of Argument.

The Appellant in his Brief distilled a sole issue for the determination of this appeal, thus:
Whether having regards to the relevant facts and findings of the lower Court in the circumstance of the Appellant’s case, the amount of damages awarded by the lower Court is not manifestly and extremely low which ought to be reviewed by this Honorable Court?

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the relevant facts and findings of the lower Court in the circumstance of the appellant’s case, the amount of damages awarded by the lower Court is manifestly and extremely low which ought to be reviewed by this Honourable Court. Counsel further submitted that the following factors have been held as factors to be considered where the Appellate Court will interfere and reverse compensatory damages. Counsel relied on the cases of FBN Plc v. A.G. Federation (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617)121; Odogwu v. A.G. Federation (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) Onwu v. Nka (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt. 458)1; Eliochin Ltd v. Mbadiwe (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 14)47; ACB v. Apugo (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt. 339) 65; UBN v. Odusote Bookstores (1995) NWLR (Pt. 421) 558.

The trial Court in its judgment made definite findings as follows:
The applicant has not furnished this Court with evidence to warrant the Court to award him aggravated or exemplary damages against the respondent.
Be that as it may, the Court having held that the fundamental rights of the applicant has been breached must award general damages to the applicant as the law itself presumes that such damages have accrued from the wrong complained of to the applicant.
There is a plethora of authorities in this regard some of which are:
1. Oceanic Bank International (Nig.) Ltd v. G. Chitex Indu. Ltd (2000) FWLR (Pt. 4) Pg. 678 at 693.
2. Incorporated Trustees of Clean Foundation v. NCSB (2004) 2 FHCLR, Pg. 563 at 569, paragraphs B-D.
I am satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the grant of general damages for the abuse of his Fundamental Rights by the respondent’s unlawful detention and accordingly award the applicant the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) as general damages to be paid by the respondent to the applicant and I so hold.
The applicant’s third prayer is for an order of this Honourable Court compelling the respondent to offer and render public apology to the applicant to be published in two widely circulated National Newspaper for the unlawful breach of the constitutional rights of the applicant’s right to personal liberty.
The Court having found that the continual detention of the applicant is unlawful, the applicant is entitled to a public apology from the appropriate authority or person by virtue of Section 35(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended). I therefore order that the respondent comply with Section 35(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and render a public apology to the applicant.

The crux of the complaint of the appellant in this appeal is the N200,000 sum of general damages awarded to him by the trial Court was not adequate. Let me begin by stating the obvious and the settled position of our laws. An award of general damages is within the discretionary powers of the Court. British Airways v. Mr. Atoyebi (2014) LPELR-23120 (SC). 

General damages are basically losses that flow naturally from the adversary and it is presumed by law. General damages known to law are awarded by the trial Court to assuage a loss caused by an act of the adversary. See Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Cameroon Airlines v. Mr. Mike E. Otutuizu (2011) LPELR-827 (SC). They are always made as a claim at large. The award is quantified by what in the opinion of a reasonable person is considered adequate loss or inconvenience which flows naturally, as generally presumed by law from the act or conduct of the Defendant. In the case of Elf Petroleum Nig. Ltd v. Daniel C. Umah & Ors., (2018) LPELR-43600 (SC), the Supreme Court held that in the award of general damages, a wide spread power is given to the Court comparable to the exercise of discretion of the Court. It is enormous and therefore far-reaching and contrary to the contention held by the appellant herein. See the following authorities of Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd v. Hope Effiong Ekpo (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt. 865) 100 at 132, Dumez v. Ogboli (1972), 2 SC 196 and Waso v. Kaila (1978) 3 SC 21.

The law is firmly settled that the appellate Court does not upset an award of damages merely because it might itself have awarded a different figure; the appellant must show that the trial judge proceeded upon some wrong principles or that the award was entirely an erroneous estimate. See Uwa Printer (Nig.) Ltd v. Investment Trust Co. Ltd (1988) 5 NWLR (Pt. 92) 110; Obere v. Board of Management Eku Hospital (1978) 1 LRN 246 at 251; Ziks Press Ltd v. Ikoku (1951) 13 WACA 188 at 189 and Barau v. Cubitts (Nig.) Ltd (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 152) 630.
It follows therefore, that in every case where the assessment and quantum of general damages awarded is in issue, the appellate Court can only interfere if only it was premised by the trial Court on some wrong principles and assumptions. These are facts which the appellant must establish before the award can be tampered with by this Court. In the instant case, the appellant has not shown any wrong principle applied by the trial Court in the award of N200,000. It follows therefore, that the issues raised in this appeal are resolved against the appellant. The appeal therefore, is lacking in merit. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
No cost is awarded.

ELFRIEDA OLUWAYEMISI WILLIAMS-DAWODU, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother, Stephen Jonah Adah, JCA, and I am in total agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein
I therefore also find the appeal lacking in merit and it is hereby dismissed.
I make no order as to costs.

DANLAMI ZAMA SENCHI, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the lead judgment of my learned brother STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JCA just delivered and I agree with the finding and conclusion arrived thereat that this appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed by me as well.

The lead judgment had essentially dealt with the principles of law upon which an Appellate Court can be called upon to temper with the award of general damages. I also want to add that award of general damages is at the discretion of the learned trial Judge though such discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously and not arbitrarily. In the case of AFRICA PRUDENTIAL REGISTRARS PLC V SPDC WEST MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED (2019) LPELR-50693, this Court held as follow:-
“And it is settled law beyond adventure that the exercise of the Court’s discretion must be done judicially and judiciously, which entails the application of legal principles to relevant facts and materials placed before it, in order to arrive at a just and equitable decision.”
See also ANACHEBE V IJEOMA & ORS (2014) LPELR-23181 (SC); UNION BANK OF NIGERIA PLC V ASTRA BUILDERS (W.A) LTD (2010) LPELR-3383 (SC) and CO-OPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK (NIG) LTD V EMEKA OGWURU, (1993) 3 NWLR (pt 284) 630.
Thus, the Appellant at the lower Court have the onerous responsibility of presenting relevant facts that will persuade the Court to exercise its discretion in his favour to award such general damages to assuage the loss suffered by the Appellant. Thus, the Appellate Court will only interfere with a lower Court’s exercise of its discretion where such interference becomes absolutely necessary where the exercise was not done judicially and judiciously. See IKENTA BEST (NIG) LTD V A. G RIVERS STATE, (2008) LPELR-1476(SC).

In the instant appeal, the Appellant has not shown or adduced facts to enable this Court interfere with the discretionary exercise of the lower Court’s power in awarding the sum of N200,000.00 general damages to the Appellant. Thus this Court cannot therefore temper or interfere with such exercise of discretion in awarding general damages.

This appeal therefore lacks merit and it is according dismissed as I said earlier. The decision of the Federal High Court in suit No. FCH/ABJ/CS/661/2018 delivered on 5th February, 2021 is hereby affirmed.

No Order as to cost.

Appearances:

Hanna U. Umaru, Esq. For Appellant(s)

Respondent served but not represented in Court. For Respondent(s)