LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

MUSA v. A.G, KANO STATE & ANOR (2022)

MUSA v. A.G, KANO STATE & ANOR

(2022)LCN/17164(CA) 

In The Court Of Appeal

(KANO JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Thursday, June 02, 2022

CA/K/15/2018

Before Our Lordships:

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Muazu Lamido Justice of the Court of Appeal

Usman Alhaji Musale Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

AHMAD MUSA APPELANT(S)

And

1. ATTORNEY GENERAL, KANO STATE 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANO STATE RESPONDENT(S)

 

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT GROUNDS OF APPEAL MUST FLOW FROM THE RATIO DECIDENDI OR ISSUES BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

A ground of Appeal and/or issue for determination of appeal must be founded on ratio decidendi or live Issue before trial Court, traced to the judgment appealed against. Decisions on this are replete. See the case of Footwear Industry Ltd Vs Dabi, where it was held: 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, appealed 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. PER MBABA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT GENERAL DAMAGES MUST BE SPECIFICALLY PLEADED

And the law does not impose any duty on a successful party, in a claim for general damages, to prove the said claim or even plead it, as the damages fall due, automatically, upon proof of liability of the defendant. This becomes more so, in claims for trespass and fundamental rights. See the case of Skye Bank Plc Vs Njoku & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40447 CA:
“In fundamental rights action, damages automatically accrue, once the Respondent has been adjudged to have violated the Applicants fundamental rights. See Ozide & Ors vs Ewuzie & Ors (2015) LPELR 24482 (CA); Ejefor vs Okeke (2000) 7 NWLR (pt 665); Anogwie & Ors vs Odom & Ors (supra).”
See also Ozide & Ors Vs Ewuzie & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24482(CA), where we held: “The law is trite, that damages, in compensation, legally and naturally follow every act of violation of a citizen’s fundamental right. See Section 35 (6) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended; See Oceanic Securities International Ltd. Vs Balogun & Ors (2012) LPELR 9218; (2013) All FWLR (pt.677)653 where we held: “Appellant could not therefore hide under the cover of reporting the 1st Respondent for issuance of dishonoured cheques, to subject him to the ordeal of arrest and detention of his car (for two years) and escape the wrath of the law. He was pursuing the recovery of the alleged debt and resorted to the use of the Police… There was no way the pretence and dishonesty of the Appellant could be covered in the circumstances, as the eagle eye of the law saw through the mischief and unlawful attack on the 1st Respondent…” See also Enukeme Vs. Mazi (2014) LPELR – 23540 (CA).”
In the case of Attah Vs IGP & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24656 CA, my lord Augie JCA (as she then was) provided some guide to assist the trial Court to arrive at fair and commensurate damages in fundamental rights action, when she said:
“In the well-known case of Ajayi v. A.G. Fed. ​(1998) 1 HRLRA 373, the Court observed that in fixing an amount for the infringement of fundamental rights, the following factors, amongst others, will be taken into consideration — (a) The frequency of the type of violation in recent times; (b) The continually depreciating value of the Naira; c) The motivation for the violation; (d) The Status of the Applicant; (e) The undeserved embarrassment meted out to the Applicant including pecuniary losses; and (f) The conduct of the parties generally, particularly the Respondent.”
PER MBABA, J.C.A.

THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE DUTIES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF A STATE AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

The law is trite that the Attorney General of a State is the alter ego of legal representation of the Government in every case the State has interest. It is also the law that the Commissioner of Police, while acting in matters affecting the State, (like fighting crimes), is the agent of the State, he serves. See the case of COP of Imo State Vs Ekweribe & Anor (2018) LPELR – 43949 CA; Gov. of Imo State & Anor Vs Ogoh & Ors (2015) LPELR 25949 CA, where it was held:
“The Government of Imo State is a statutory person, who can only act or operate through human personalities, identified by law as Officer(s) or Official(s) of the Government. The Governor of Imo State is the alter ego of the Imo State Government, and the Attorney General of the State is the chief law officer of the State, enjoined by law to represent the interests and obligations of the Government of Imo State in all legal/judicial transactions and their roles are constitutional. See Section 176 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, which says: “The Governor of a State shall be the Chief Executive of that State.” Section 195(1) says: “There shall be an Attorney General for each State who shall be the Chief Law Officer and Commissioner for Justice of the Government of that State.” There are several judicial interpretations, to the effect that, Attorney General of a State is a defendant or a nominal defendant in all civil actions which the Government of the State is sued or involved and the act/omission of the Governor of the State and/or any official of the State, when under litigation, the disclosure of the Attorney General of the State suffices to join the entire machinery of the Government of the State, and the government is committed. See Nigeria Engineering Workers Ltd vs. DENAP (2001) 18 NWLR (pt. 746) 726 at 752; AG Adamawa vs. AG Federation (2006) 1 MJSC 1; AG Anambra State vs. AG Federation (2007) 12 NWLR (pt. 1047) 1.PER MBABA, J.C.A.

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This Appeal emanated from the decision of Kano State High Court in Suit No. KM/105/2012, delivered on 26th September, 2012 by Hon. Justice S.B. Na-Malam, wherein the learned trial Court declared the detention of Appellant for 10 years, without charging him to Court, as infringement to his Fundamental Rights. However, the Court awarded only the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) to him as general damages and refused some other reliefs sought.

At the trial Court, Appellant, (as Applicant) had filed the Suit to enforce his fundamental rights and after hearing the case and considering the affidavit evidence, the trial Court held for the Applicant (Appellant) and said:
​“Having taken the position stated by my learned brother (in the case of Ajayi Vs A.G. Federation (1998) 1 HRLA, delivered by Odunowo J., which he relied on) I am of the view that the applicant having stayed in custody for 10 years without being taken to Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence which he is presumed innocent, which (sic) no end in sight of when he is to be charged, amounted to violation of the applicant’s right as stated earlier and is entitled to compensatory damages; I therefore awarded (sic) the sum of N200,000 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) against the 2nd Respondent in favour of the Applicant. In the final analysis the Applicant’s application succeeds and I hereby make the following declarations, as follows (sic):
(1) A Declaration that the detention of the applicant for a period of ten years from April, 2002 to date without being charged to a Court of competent jurisdiction is a violation of the applicant entitlement to a right of fair hearing within a reasonable time.
(2) That the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) is warded (sic) to the applicant as compensatory damages for violation of his right as stated in (1) above.
(3) That applicant be released forthwith unconditionally by the officer in charge of Central Prison, Kano or wherever the applicant is being detained.” See Pages 116 – 117 of the Records of Appeal.

At the Lower Court, Appellant had asked for the following reliefs:
(1) Declaration of this Court that arrest of the applicant without reasonable suspicion of having committed any crime and his subsequent detention for a period of 10 years from April, 2002 to date without trial is against the Constitution of the FRN 1999, African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights and violation of the applicant’s Fundamental Human Rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and right to fair hearing within reasonable time (sic) and the applicant is entitled to damages.
(2) Declaration of this Court that detention of the applicant at the instance of the respondents for a period of 10 years from April, 2002 to date without trial, while the respondents have been charging and prosecuting other suspect offenders who were arrested much later than the applicant, constitutes violation and infringement of the applicant’s right to freedom from discrimination as enshrined in the Constitution of FRN 1999 and African Charter on Human and People’s Right (sic) and the Applicant is therefore entitled to damages.
(3) Declaration of this Court that torturing the Applicant by flogging with cable wire and beating with stick for a period of forty-one days by the agents of the 2nd respondent while under their custody amounts to torture, cruel and inhuman treatment which are illegal, unconstitutional and the applicant’s is therefore entitled to damages.
(4) An Order of the Court awarding the sum of N9,280,000.00 as specific damages against the respondents jointly and severally in favour of the Applicant for loss of earnings for periods of 10 years from April, 2002 – 31st December, 2011.
(5) An Order of this Court awarding the sum of N200,000,000.00 as general and exemplary damages against the respondents jointly and severally.
(6) An Order of the Court unconditionally discharging and releasing the applicant from prison custody.
(7) An Order of this Court compelling the respondents to tender a public apology to the applicant in respect of this matter by publishing same in one of the newspapers circulating in Kano State.
(8) Any other order(s) as this Court may deem fit to make in the interest of justice. (See Pages 5 and 99 – 101 of the Records of Appeal).

As reproduced above, Appellant had sought for an award of N9,280,000 (Nine Million, Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira) as specific damages against Respondents for loss of earnings for the period of ten years – April, 2002 to 31st December, 2011. He also asked for the sum of N200,000,000.00, as general damages. (But the learned trial Judge wrongly captured it as N200,000.00 on page 100 of the Records of Appeal).

In this Appeal, Appellant is dissatisfied with the award of N200,000.00 only, as general damages, without any reference to the N9,280,000.00 sought for loss of earnings for the 10 years of incarceration, which the trial Court rightly upheld as a violation of the Appellant’s fundamental rights.

The Notice of Appeal was filed on 24/12/2012 (Pages 123 to 127 of the Records), with 4 grounds of Appeal. Appellant filed his brief of argument on 27/1/2020, which was deemed duly filed on 02/11/2021.

He distilled 4 (four) Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether the Lower Court was wrong in awarding the sum of N200,000.000 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira only) as compensation to the Appellant considering the facts and circumstances of the case. (Ground 1)
(2) Whether the Lower Court was wrong when it exonerated the 1st Respondent of wrongdoing in respect of the Appellant’s case? (Ground 2)
(3) Whether the Lower Court was wrong in law when he (sic) refused to award special damages in favour of the Appellant? (Ground 3)
(4) Whether the arrest of the Appellant by the 2nd Respondent was lawful in the circumstances of this case? (Ground 4)

The 1st Respondent filed Brief on 27/11/2021 and adopted the Issues for determination, as distilled by the Appellant.

Arguing the Appeal, Counsel for the Appellant, Usman Umar Fari, Esq, on Issue 1, said the trial Court was wrong to award only N200,000.00 to the Appellant as compensation, the same being extremely low and inadequate; that all the facts deposed to as to how he was arrested and detained for 10 years, were not refuted or contradicted; that “Appellant having established a case of unlawful long detention for ten years, insolence, cruelty, torture and depravation (sic) of aminities of life, he deserves (sic) to be awarded heavy damages.” (Paragraph 4.9. of the Appellant’s Brief).

He relied on the case of Attah Vs I.G.P. & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24656 CA, to say that, in fixing amount for the infringement of fundamental rights, the Court should consider:
(a) The frequency of the type of violation in recent times;
(b) The continually depreciating value of Naira;
(c) The undeserved embarrassment meted out to the applicant including pecuniary losses; and the motivation for the violation;
(d) The status of Applicant and;
(e) The conduct of the parties, generally, particularly the Respondent.

Counsel said that the award of N200,000.00 only for unlawful detention for 10 years was paltry and cannot assuage the injustice suffered; that this Court is enjoined to interfere and intervene with such award, to correct the injustice. He relied on the case of Oke Vs Maja (2013) LPELR – 19908 SC, where it was held:
“The law is settled that an appellate Court is empowered to interfere with the amount of damages awarded by the trial Court, where it is established that in making the award the Court had proceeded on wrong principle or that the award is unjust.”

On Issue 2, Counsel said the trial Court was wrong to exempt the 1st Respondent from wrongdoing, in the circumstances of this case, considering the avalanche of compelling evidence establishing the culpability of the 1st Respondent in the infringement of Appellant’s Fundamental Rights; that Appellant had made a case of discrimination against the 1st Respondent, for refusing and failure to issue legal advice for a period of 10 years, so that he could either be charged or released from custody, depending on the legal advice; that 1st Respondent had failed in his responsibilities. Counsel referred us to Exhibit AA (the Records of Proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court) to the effect that the prosecution stated: “we are awaiting the DPP’s legal advice.” (See Pages 17 – 25 of the Records of Appeal). Counsel also said that 1st Respondent’s office was the office handling the case against the Appellant at the Magistrate’s Court. He noted that the 2nd Respondent acts as an agent of the State, which the 2nd Respondent serves, and the 1st Respondent is the Chief law Officer of the State. He relied on the case of Okoroma Vs UBA (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt.587) 359 at 387.

​On Issue 3, Counsel said the trial Court was wrong to refuse to award the specific damages claimed. He referred us to the averments of Appellant as to what he earned each day, plus the salaries he got for his guard job, per month, which cumulatively was calculated to amount to the N9,280,000.00 claimed, for the 10 years of incarceration, which deprived him of the earnings. He relied on the case of Arulogun Vs COP Lagos & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40190 CA; Adindu & Ors Vs Wabara (2014) LPELR – 22861 CA and Akaolisa Vs Akaolisa (2014) LPELR – 24148 CA.

On Issue 4, whether the arrest of Appellant was lawful, in the circumstances of this case, Counsel answered in the negative.

The Respondent’s Brief was argued by Amina Yusuf Yargaya (Learned Solicitor General of Kano State). She defended the award of N200,000.00 as general damages to Appellant and said that award of damages is at the discretion of the trial Court. She relied on the case of CBN & Ors Vs Okojie (2015) LPELR – 24740 SC.

​Counsel said the trial Court was even magnanimous to grant the N200,000.00, despite the fact that Appellant did not prove the damages sought.

On the specific damages, Counsel said special damages have to be proved, strictly, and that Appellant did not prove same as required by law.

On Issue 2, whether the Court was wrong to exonerate the 1st Respondent of blame, Counsel answered in the negative. She said that the 1st Respondent could not be accountable, where there was no proof that the case file had been transmitted to the 1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent. She said that the fact that a State Counsel appeared in the case at the Magistrate’s Court, twice, in five years, did not automatically translate to the Attorney General (1st Respondent) having possession of the case diary. She argued that the Commissioner of Police (2nd Respondent) is not subject to the directives of the State Governor, who is the Chief Security Officer of the State, for only Security purposes; notwithstanding the fact that the Governor of a State can issue lawful directives to the Commissioner of Police. She relied on the case of Alamieyashigha Vs Ignoniwari (2007) 7 NWLR (Pt.1034).

On Issue 3, whether the trial Court was wrong to refuse to award special damages to Appellant, Counsel relied on the case of Kopek Construction Ltd Vs Ekisola (2010) LPELR – 1703 (SC), on the meaning of the word special damages! She acknowledged that Appellant deposed to some facts about his earnings, before his arrest and detention, but said that the fact that Respondents did not depose to facts to counter those averments, did not absolve the Appellant of the duty to prove the special damages claimed, strictly; she said that Appellant ought to have annexed evidence of payment of salary before the trial Court; that he was not able to prove that he earned not less than N2000 a day as claimed. Counsel relied on the case of Union Bank Plc Vs Nwankwo & Anor (2019) LPELR – 46418 (SC), on how to prove special damages, that it has to be established, strictly.

On Issue 4, Counsel said the trial Court was right to hold that the arrest of Appellant by the Officers of 2nd Respondent could not be said to be illegal, considering the facts and circumstances of the case; that the mere fact that the charge had not been filed, for reasons stated in the affidavit, did not cleanse Appellant from reasonable suspicion, in the circumstance. Counsel urged us to resolve the Issues against Appellant and to dismiss the Appeal.

RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
I think the Issue 4 raised by Appellant, on whether the arrest of the Appellant by the 2nd Respondent was lawful in the circumstances of this case, (developed from ground 4 of the Appeal) was completely uncalled for, as the same appears not to be a live issue in the judgment appealed against. The trial Court had deprecated the detention of Appellant for 10 years, after his arrest, and had held same to be a violation of his fundamental rights. What caused the arrest and/or the legality or lawfulness of same was not an issue before the Court.

A ground of Appeal and/or issue for determination of appeal must be founded on ratio decidendi or live Issue before trial Court, traced to the judgment appealed against. Decisions on this are replete. See the case of Footwear Industry Ltd Vs Dabi, where it was held: 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, appealed 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.

I therefore strike out Issue 4 for incompetence.
I shall resolve this Appeal on the remaining 3 Issues by Appellant, which Issues can be summarized into two, namely:
(1) Whether the trial Court was right to award only N200,000.00 to the Appellant as compensation for his unlawful detention for ten years and violation of his fundamental rights, but said nothing about the specific claims for N9,280,000.00 loss of earning, during the incarceration?
(2) Whether the trial Court was right to exonerate the 1st Respondent (A.G. of Kano State) from blame in the case.

I shall take the two Issues, together.
The law is trite, that the determination of the quantum of damages awardable to a successful party in a case is at the discretion of the trial Court, which, however, has a duty to exercise that discretion judiciously and judicially. The cases on this are replete. See Iroaganachi Vs Madubuko & Anor (2016) LPELR – 40048 (CA); ELF Petroleum Vs Umah & Ors (2018) LPELR – 43600 (SC).

And the law does not impose any duty on a successful party, in a claim for general damages, to prove the said claim or even plead it, as the damages fall due, automatically, upon proof of liability of the defendant. This becomes more so, in claims for trespass and fundamental rights. See the case of Skye Bank Plc Vs Njoku & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40447 CA:
“In fundamental rights action, damages automatically accrue, once the Respondent has been adjudged to have violated the Applicants fundamental rights. See Ozide & Ors vs Ewuzie & Ors (2015) LPELR 24482 (CA); Ejefor vs Okeke (2000) 7 NWLR (pt 665); Anogwie & Ors vs Odom & Ors (supra).”
See also Ozide & Ors Vs Ewuzie & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24482(CA), where we held: “The law is trite, that damages, in compensation, legally and naturally follow every act of violation of a citizen’s fundamental right. See Section 35 (6) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended; See Oceanic Securities International Ltd. Vs Balogun & Ors (2012) LPELR 9218; (2013) All FWLR (pt.677)653 where we held: “Appellant could not therefore hide under the cover of reporting the 1st Respondent for issuance of dishonoured cheques, to subject him to the ordeal of arrest and detention of his car (for two years) and escape the wrath of the law. He was pursuing the recovery of the alleged debt and resorted to the use of the Police… There was no way the pretence and dishonesty of the Appellant could be covered in the circumstances, as the eagle eye of the law saw through the mischief and unlawful attack on the 1st Respondent…” See also Enukeme Vs. Mazi (2014) LPELR – 23540 (CA).”
In the case of Attah Vs IGP & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24656 CA, my lord Augie JCA (as she then was) provided some guide to assist the trial Court to arrive at fair and commensurate damages in fundamental rights action, when she said:
“In the well-known case of Ajayi v. A.G. Fed. ​(1998) 1 HRLRA 373, the Court observed that in fixing an amount for the infringement of fundamental rights, the following factors, amongst others, will be taken into consideration — (a) The frequency of the type of violation in recent times; (b) The continually depreciating value of the Naira; c) The motivation for the violation; (d) The Status of the Applicant; (e) The undeserved embarrassment meted out to the Applicant including pecuniary losses; and (f) The conduct of the parties generally, particularly the Respondent.”

For me, the curious thing about this case is that Appellant had claimed the N200,000.000 (Two Hundred Million Naira) as general damages for breach of his fundamental rights as a result of his incarceration for 10 years, without trial. (See Relief 5 of the claim on Page 2 of the Records). But the trial Court wrongly wrote N200,000 as the general damages claimed by Appellant (Page 100 of the Records). This may have made the Court to arrive at the Two Hundred Thousand Naira (N200,000) only, as general damages, in the circumstances. It is difficult to appreciate and construe that as proper discretion, in the light of the sound findings by the trial Court, to the effect that, Appellant had been quite unfairly treated by Respondents and abandoned in the gulag for 10 years, without trial.

Though the Court said that the specific damages were not proved. It held:
“On the issue as to whether the applicant is entitled to all the reliefs sought… Respecting the issue of damages, being claimed by the applicant for the fact that his fundamental rights have been breached for ten years and his argument that this should be remedied by the award of damages, especially where the applicant demand is for specific damages, arising as a result of the applicant detention, the Court must award same. The position of the law as regards to specific damages is that they must be proved. The applicant in this instance has not proved same as the averments in this affidavit in support failed short of proving whether his earnings as averred in paragraph 2(c) and (d) can be fully actualized or realized and therefore speculative, which the Court have (sic) been enjoined to disregard.
In the light of the above, it is the conclusion of this Court that the applicant’s fundamental rights to a fair hearing within reasonable time have been violated as ten years in which he has been in custody is a period longer than necessary for a person to be in custody without being tried and convicted, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
I am of the view that the applicant having stayed in custody for 10 years, without being taken to Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence which he is presumed innocent… amounted to violation of the applicant’s right as stated earlier and is entitled to compensatory damages. I therefore awarded (sic) the sum of ₦200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) against the 2nd respondent in favour of the applicants.” (See pages 115 to 117 of the Records)

Appellant has argued that the sum of ₦200,000.00 was extremely low and inadequate. I tend to agree with Appellant’s Counsel, that the general damages awarded was extremely low and inadequate, and cannot be truly described as compensatory, in the face of the findings of the trial Court, that Appellant was incarcerated for onward of ten years in prison, without trial or being arraigned in a competent Court! I think the error of writing N200,000.00 as damages claimed, misled the lower Court, to reach the conclusion of awarding the said N200,000.00 as general damages.

I cannot actually imagine what would be adequate compensation for a man – a forty-five (45) year old man, with a wife and children, and aged parents, depending on him, arrested and kept away in prison, for 10 years, subjected to all the deprivations, physical, emotional and psychological tortures and forgotten by those who arrested and detained him, only for a human right’s Counsel to discover him in the prison, and bring up the Fundamental Rights Application, for his release and remedy! Certainly, ₦200,000.00 in 2012, appeared to be and/or sound as a ridicule of the words “compensatory damages”, in the circumstance. Appellant deserved much more.

The entire suit is a sad reminder of so many other citizens/persons, who may be languishing in detentions, having been arrested and kept away (or even eliminated), by the Police and other security agencies, under strange or questionable circumstances (with the strong connivance or instigation of the police and/or other law enforcement agencies). It is, in my view, an indictment on the government, represented by the Respondents, for this to happen, at all.

I cannot see any legal logic or explanation of the learned trial judge exonerating the 1st Respondent (Attorney General of the State) in the circumstances of this case, when the Attorney General serves as the Chief Legal Adviser to the government in such matters, and the charge brought to the Magistrate’s Court against Appellant, was ordered to be sent to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), located in the chambers of the Attorney General of the State (1st Respondent), for legal advice, whether to charge Appellant to the competent (High) Court or to release him. The 1st Respondent has, therefore, neglected to do his duties, for 10 years, despite the fact that Counsel from the office of 1st Respondent, had appeared at the said Magistrate’s Court, on the matter. 1st Respondent cannot, therefore, be absolved of blame, in my opinion.

​The law is trite that the Attorney General of a State is the alter ego of legal representation of the Government in every case the State has interest. It is also the law that the Commissioner of Police, while acting in matters affecting the State, (like fighting crimes), is the agent of the State, he serves. See the case of COP of Imo State Vs Ekweribe & Anor (2018) LPELR – 43949 CA; Gov. of Imo State & Anor Vs Ogoh & Ors (2015) LPELR 25949 CA, where it was held:
“The Government of Imo State is a statutory person, who can only act or operate through human personalities, identified by law as Officer(s) or Official(s) of the Government. The Governor of Imo State is the alter ego of the Imo State Government, and the Attorney General of the State is the chief law officer of the State, enjoined by law to represent the interests and obligations of the Government of Imo State in all legal/judicial transactions and their roles are constitutional. See Section 176 (2) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, which says: “The Governor of a State shall be the Chief Executive of that State.” Section 195(1) says: “There shall be an Attorney General for each State who shall be the Chief Law Officer and Commissioner for Justice of the Government of that State.” There are several judicial interpretations, to the effect that, Attorney General of a State is a defendant or a nominal defendant in all civil actions which the Government of the State is sued or involved and the act/omission of the Governor of the State and/or any official of the State, when under litigation, the disclosure of the Attorney General of the State suffices to join the entire machinery of the Government of the State, and the government is committed. See Nigeria Engineering Workers Ltd vs. DENAP (2001) 18 NWLR (pt. 746) 726 at 752; AG Adamawa vs. AG Federation (2006) 1 MJSC 1; AG Anambra State vs. AG Federation (2007) 12 NWLR (pt. 1047) 1.”

The 1st Respondent was therefore also liable to the Appellant in the claim for damages, having failed in his duties.

​I agree with the trial Court, that the Appellant did not prove the specific damages as required by law. But having found the claim of Appellant, that Appellant was entitled to general damages, for the violation of his fundamental rights (for being incarcerated for 10 years), I think the ₦200,000 awarded was ridiculously low and inadequate. The trial Court ought to have raised the general damages to Two Million Naira (₦2,000,000.00), and I so hold, payable by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, jointly and severally.

The law allows appellate Court to interfere and intervene, where the award made by the lower did not factor in all the relevant facts, and so the discretion was not properly exercised; and/or where the award made was too high or ridiculously low, in the circumstances. See the cases of Mekwunye Vs Emirate Airlines (2019) LPELR – 46553 (SC) and B. B. Apugo & Sons Vs OHMB (2016) LPELR – 40598 (SC), where it was held:
“It is also trite that an appellate Court would not interfere with an award of special damages unless the award is based on some wrong principle of law, or where the amount awarded is so high or so low as to make it an entirely erroneous estimate of the damage suffered by the claimant. See: S.P.D.C. Nig. Ltd. v. Tiebo VII (2005) 9 NWLR (Pt. 931) 439, where it was held that the evidence proffered must be qualitative and credible such as lends itself to quantification and that each case depends on its own facts and circumstance.” Per KEKERE-EKUN, JSC
In the case of Iwununne Vs Egbuchulem & Ors (2016) LPELR – 40515 (CA), this Court held: “In the case of GTB Plc vs Fadco Industries Nig ltd & Anor (2013) LPELR 21411 CA, this Court relying on the Supreme Court case of Ifeanyi Chikwu Osondu Co. ltd vs Akhigbe (1999) 11 NWLR (pt. 625) 1, said: An Appellate Court does not make it its business to interfere with general damages awarded by the trial Court, unless it is established that the trial judge acted, in the award of such damages, upon some wrong principles or that the amount awarded was so large or so small as to make it a completely erroneous assessment of the damages. Per Uwaifo JSC. The above principle is applicable in every and any situation of exercise of discretion by a Lower Court. Appellate Court can only interfere, where it is established that the Lower Court did not exercise its discretion properly, taking into consideration all the judicial procedures and the requirements of justice, thereof. GTB Plc vs Fadco Industries Nig Ltd (Supra); S&D Construction ltd vs Ayoku (2011) 13 NWLR (pt. 1266) 487; NNPC vs KLIFCO Nig. Ltd (2011) 10 NWLR (pt. 1255) 209; Ajuwa vs SPDCN (2011) 18 NWLR (pt. 1279) 797.”

​I therefore resolve the two Issues for Appellant, and allow the Appeal, set aside the ridiculous award of ₦200,000 for Appellant, as general damages, and in its place, award Two Million Naira ₦2,000,000.000 to Appellant, which I think, the trial Court ought to have awarded as compensatory damages for violation of his fundamental rights – incarcerating him for 10 years, without trial.

The Respondents shall pay the said damages to Appellant, jointly and severally. They shall also pay the cost of this Appeal assessed at Two Hundred Thousand Naira (₦200,000.00) only, to Appellant.

ABUBAKAR MU’AZU LAMIDO, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA, and I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusion reached therein that the appeal is meritorious and ought to be allowed. I too allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the trial Court. I also abide by all other consequential orders in the lead judgment including order as to cost.

USMAN ALHAJI MUSALE, J.C.A.: I have had the privilege of reading in draft the judgment by my learned brother ITA. G. MBABA, JCA. The stand of my brother on the issues raised and dealt with before us and the reasoning and conclusion reached by my Lord tallied with mine and found that the appeal is meritorious. The appeal is equally allowed by me and I abide by the consequential orders made therein.

Appearances:

USMAN UMAR FARI, ESQ. For Appellant(s)

AMINA YUSUF YARGAYA (Learned Solicitor General of Kano State), with him, K.A. HASHIM (SC) and H.A. WALI (SC) – for 1st Respondent. For Respondent(s)