N.S.C.D.C v. FILLI
(2020)LCN/14568(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Monday, September 21, 2020
CA/YL/168/2017
RATIO
PLEADINGS: RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY
Section 35(1)(c) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution provides in part as follows:
“35(1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person shall be deprived of such liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure permitted by law-
(c) for the purpose of bringing him before a Court in execution of the order of a Court or upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, or to such extent as may be reasonably necessary to prevent his committing a criminal offence;
(6) Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person; and in this subsection, “the appropriate authority or person“ means an authority or person specified by law.”
In a resume, the case of the Appellant is that, it was empowered to arrest and detain the Respondent under Section 3 (1) (f) (i) of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (Amendment) Act 2007. Section 3(1) (f) (i) of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (Amendment) Act 2007 provides as follows:
(1) The Corps shall-
…
(f) have power to arrest with or without a warrant, detain, investigate and institute legal proceedings by or in the name of the Attorney General of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria against any person who is reasonably suspected to have committed an offence under this Act or involved in any:
(1) Criminal activity.”
Learned counsel for the Appellant nowhere pointed out what criminal activity the Respondent was arrested and detained for. I have read the counter affidavit of the Appellant to the affidavit in support of the Respondent’s application. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, the deponent deposed as follows:
“4. That I know as a fact a petition was written to the Respondents Office titled “PETITION IN RESPECT OF OBNOXIOUS WITHDRAWAL OF MONEY BY ONE MERCY KWADA TIZHE OF RESQUE INTERNATIONAL MAIDUGURI BORNO STATE FROM THE ACCOUNT OF DR. KALEB BULUS FILLI (ACCOUNT NO. 201263356) FIRST BANK PLC. DATED THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016.
5. That the petition letter is hereby attached to this Counter Affidavit and marked as Exhibit ‘A’.”
Exhibit A annexed to the Appellant’s counter affidavit although not so marked or marked at all, is an incomplete document. This is because the document referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit made reference to a statement of account, forged cheques and signatures used by the Respondent attached to the letter. These documents form part of Exhibit A and have been detached from it. Evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. See Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011.
As learned counsel for the Respondent pointed out, the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the Respondent was legally arrested and detained. This the appellant failed to do by not showing for what alleged offence the Respondent was arrested.
In paragraph 30 of the affidavit in support of the application the Respondent had deposed as follows:
30. That in the head of Administration’s office, I was ordered by the said head of Administration – Mr. Samuel Onyemachi to reconcile with my husband whom he said had alleged that I was keeping extra-marital affairs and that I had forged his signature on several cheques and withdrew several sums of money from his First Bank Account during the period he traveled outside the country. Per JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.
RATIO
PLEADINGS: DAMAGES FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT VIOLATION
Under Section 35(6) of the 1999 Constitution FRN (as amended) any person unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology.
In fundamental rights actions damages automatically accrue once the respondent is adjudged to have violated the applicant’s fundamental right. Any violation of a citizen’s guaranteed fundamental right, for however short a time, must attract a penalty under the Constitution. Damages are awarded to compensate the applicant for harm done to him and punish the respondent for his conduct in inflicting the harm. See FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. & ORS. V. A.G. of THE FEDERATION & ORS (2018) LPELR-46084 SC, SKYE BANK PLC v. EMERSON NJOKU & ORS (2016) LPELR-40447 SCAND ALABOH v. BOYES (1984) 5 NCLR 830. In the instant case, the Appellant having unlawfully arrested and detained, the Respondent must be penalized in damages under Section 35 (6) of the 1999 Constitution FRN (as amended). The Appellant’s protest that the detention was for less than twenty four hours must be ignored. It did not matter even if it was for a minute.
The quantum of damages however is always at the discretion of the trial Court depending on the gravity of the violation. See FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. V. A.G. FEDERATION & ORS (SUPRA).
In the instant matter, the Court below awarded Fifteen Million Naira (N15,000,000) exemplary damages in favour of the Respondent without stating why. I am aware that the Respondent asked for Twenty-Five (N25,000,000) simplicer not exemplary damages. In my view, the Court below ought to have stated why it was awarding exemplary damages. Secondly, the Court below ought to have indicated why it was awarding Fifteen Million Naira for an arrest and detention that did not last up to twenty four hours. This was not proper.
Therefore, the Court will interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court below which awarded the sum of N15 Million to the Respondent for unlawful arrest and detention of the Respondent for less than twenty-four hours. Per JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.
Before Our Lordships:
Chidi Nwaoma Uwa Justice of the Court of Appeal
James Shehu Abiriyi Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
NIGERIA SECURITY AND CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS APPELANT(S)
And
MRS. MERCY KALEB FILLI RESPONDENT(S)
JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment delivered on the 20th June, 2017 in the High Court of Adamawa State holden at Yola. The Appellant was the Respondent in the fundamental rights proceedings. The Respondent who was the Applicant in the High Court (the Court below) sought several reliefs inter alia, a declaration that her arrest and detention by the Appellant contravened Sections 34, 35 and 45 of the 199 Constitution FRN (as amended) and Articles 5 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap 10 LFRN and the sum of Twenty Five Million (N25,000,000) Naira only for breach of her fundamental human rights.
The case of the Respondent as can be made out from the affidavit in support of the application is as follows: On 10th October, 2016, the Respondent was invited by men of the Appellant. When she rejected the invitation an attempt was made to force her into a waiting van. This led to a scuffle at the Federal High Court premises here in Yola where the Respondent was at the time. At the Dougirei Police Station here in Yola, she was persuaded to
1
follow the men of the Appellant. At the Appellant’s office, she was detained until the following day at about 11.30am. Overnight she was made to sleep on the bare floor. She was told to report back on 14th November, 2016. She did. She was told by the head of Administration of the Appellant to reconcile with her husband.
According to the Respondent, she was unlawfully detained and her dignity violated as a mother of four children and was entitled to N25 Million compensation.
The Appellant disputed the claim of the Respondent. According to the Appellant, a petition was written to the Appellant’s office on an alleged obnoxious withdrawal of money by the Respondent from the account of Dr. Kaleb Bulus Filli with the First Bank. The Respondent was transferred from Appellant’s annex office to the Headquarters for further investigation on the forged signature that she was accused of.
The Respondent was not taken to Court because the investigation had not been completed.
After considering the affidavit evidence before it and addresses of counsel for both parties, the Court below entered judgment in favour of the Respondent.
2
It awarded N15 Million exemplary damages to the Respondent.
The Appellant immediately proceeded to this Court to challenge the judgment of the Court below by a notice of appeal dated and filed on 23rd June, 2017. The notice of appeal contains four grounds of appeal.
From the four grounds of appeal, the Appellant in its brief of argument filed on 20th December, 2017, deemed duly filed on 22nd, November, 2018 and further deemed duly filed and served on 7th September, 2020 presented the following two issues for determination:
1. Whether having regards to the provision of Section 3(1)(f)(i) of the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (Amendment) Act, 2007. The learned trial judge was right when he hold (sic) that the Appellant have (sic) no legal powers to arrest and detain suspects? (Grounds 1 & 4).
2. Whether or not the judge was right to award the sum of N15,000,000.00 as exemplary damages against the Appellant for the arrest and detention of the Respondent done in line with the law haven (sic) regards to the circumstances, facts and evidence before the Court? (Ground Two and Three).
The Respondent in her brief of argument filed
3
on 6th December, 2018 and deemed duly filed and served on 7th September, 2020 submitted the following three issues for determination:
1. Whether having regards to the affidavit evidence and the argument canvassed before the lower Court, the learned judge of the lower Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the arrest, detention and/or restraint and torture of the Respondent by the Appellant’s officers on the 10/10/2016, 11/10/2016 and 14/11/2016 were acts which were ultra vires the Respondent’s powers. (Distilled from Ground 1).
2. Whether on the state of affidavit evidence before the lower Court and the law, the learned judge of the lower Court properly exercised his discretion in awarding exemplary damages of N15,000,00.00 (Fifteen million naira) only against the Appellant in favour of the Respondent for breach of her fundamental rights (Distilled from Grounds 2 and 3).
3. Whether ground 4 in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal and the issues distilled from it is not incompetent. (Distilled from Ground 4).
The Appellant filed an Appellant’s Reply Brief on 29th March, 2019. It was deemed duly filed on 7th September, 2020.
4
On issue 1, learned counsel for the Appellant, submitted that Section 3(1)(f)(i) of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (Amendment) Act 2007 empowers the appellant to arrest and detain contrary to the finding of the Court below. The Court was also referred to Section 1 (2), Part V11 of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, Act 2003.
On issue 2, it was submitted that the Respondent’s right under Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution FRN (as amendment) can be derogated from. That since the Appellant is empowered under the law establishing it to do what it did, the derogation was lawful and acceptable in a civilized society. The Court was referred toKuti & Anor v. A.G. Federation (1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.6 (sic), Asari v. F.R.N. (2007) WRN 1 at 14-15 and Section 45 (1) of the 1999 Constitution FRN (as amended).
The petition, Exhibit A, it was submitted, discloses the commission of a crime by the Respondent. The Court was referred toBASSEY V. AFIA (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 531) 1477.
The Court was urged to hold that the detention of the Respondent was reasonable since she was not held for up to twenty four (24) hours.
5
It was submitted that the award of exemplary damages of N15 Million against the appellant by the Court below was unreasonable.
It was contended that the Respondent neither pleaded nor led evidence of exemplary damages. It was submitted that exemplary damages must be claimed and made out before they are awarded to redress the infringement of fundamental human rights. The Court was referred to JIMOH V. A.G. OF THE FEDERATION (1998) 1 HRLR AT 513; C.B.N. & ANOR V. OKOJIE (2015) VOL. 25 LRCN 64 AND EGBU V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ANAMBRA STATE (2005) 4 AHLRL 697.
It was contended that the Court below failed to take judicial notice of the economic recession in Nigeria when it awarded damages against an agency of the Federal Government. This, it was submitted, amounted to improper exercise of discretion.
Courts especially trial Courts, it was submitted, should always bear in mind that award of damages is not a gold mine for a successful litigant.
On issue 1, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Court below was right in coming to the conclusion that the Appellant’s officers acted ultra vires the power of the
6
Appellant when they arrested and detained the Respondent on account of the petition written by the husband of the Respondent on allegation of fraud.
It was submitted that the Appellant misunderstood the purport of Section 3(1)(f)(i) of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (Amendment) Act 2007 relied upon by it. The Court was referred to the preamble of the 2007 Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (Amendment) Act.
It was submitted that all the powers accorded the Appellant in the amended Section 3 of the principal Act must be construed strictly within the preamble to the Act.
The Appellant, it was submitted, had the burden of proving the legality of the arrest and detention of the Respondent. This it failed to do.
The Court was referred to the finding of the Court below that paragraphs 7,9, 11-13 and 15 of the Appellant’s counter affidavit contravened Section 115(1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011. The offensive paragraphs, it was submitted could not support the case of the appellant.
On issue 2, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the fundamental rights of a person under Sections 35 and 45 of the 1999 Constitution
7
can be violated or infringed upon if such person is wrongfully or unlawfully restrained even for a minute. The Court was referred to EKPU v. A.G. FEDERATION (1998) 1 HRLRA 391 And ALABOH V. BOYES (1984) 5NCLR 830. It was therefore immaterial that the Respondent was detained for less than twenty four (24) hours, it was submitted.
The Appellant, it was submitted, can only plead reasonableness in the duration of detention if such detention is not wrongful or unlawful.
On the award of N15 Million damages, it was submitted that the common law principle of award of damage is not applicable to matters under the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. The Court was referred to I G. P. V. IKPILA (2016) 9 NWLR (PT. 1517) 236 AT 253 AND 291 AND JAJA V. C.O.P. RIVERS STATE (2013) 4 NWLR (PT. 1350) 225 AT 254. It was submitted that the Court below was well guided and did not misconceive the rules guiding award of damages in enforcement of fundamental rights cases. It was submitted that where breach of fundamental rights is alleged and proved, the victim is automatically entitled to compensation even when no specific amount is claimed.
8
The Court was again referred to JAJA V. RIVERS STATE (SUPRA) AT 244-245 AND 254 AND I.G.P V. IKPILA (SUPRA) 295.
The Respondent, it was submitted, was entitled to exemplary damages even though the Respondent did not tag the claim for damages as exemplary damages as the amount awarded was less than the amount claimed.
On issue 3, it was pointed out that no argument was advanced by the Appellant touching ground 4. That ground 4 was merely tied to issue 1. No argument relating to ground 4, it was submitted, was advanced under issue 1 or anywhere in the Appellant’s brief.
In the Appellant’s reply brief, it was contended that issue 3 of the Respondent’s brief amounted to a preliminary objection and the Court was urged to discountenance it because a preliminary objection is only filed against the hearing of the appeal and not against one or more grounds. The Court was referred to Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 404.
Ground 4 of the grounds of Appeal like all the other three grounds of appeal has no particulars. It is reproduced immediately hereunder:
”The learned trial High Court Judge erred in Law when
9
he cited in his Judgment at page 5 paragraph three line six that Respondents Counsel referred him to Section 3(1)(f) of the Act establishing the Respondent. Hence, there is no such Section in the Act establishing the Respondent and Counsel did not cited (sic) such authority in any way.”
As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondent, although the Appellant pretended to tie the above ground of appeal to issue 1, no single word was uttered in argument in support of the ground of appeal. This is because the ground of appeal is meaningless. It was this rather poor advocacy on the part of Appellant’s counsel that the learned counsel for the Respondent was confronted with. It was for this reason that the Respondent’s counsel devised a means to deal with the problem. He was not expected to merely fold his arms and do nothing. There is a procedure to remedy this type of situation, however.
The Respondent’s counsel should not have allowed Appellant’s counsel to mislead him into formulating an issue on ground 4 in order to ventilate his grievance against the ground since the Respondent was not complaining about all
10
the grounds of appeal, he ought to have brought a motion urging the Court to strike out the ground of appeal complained of. It was wrong to proceed to formulate an issue on the ground of appeal complained of.
A ground of appeal as this Court has stated in several of its decisions must be couched in such a way as to attack the judgment of a Court on an issue decided by the Court. See BOSIEC V. KACHALA (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 962) 587, Ngige V. Obi (2006) 4 NWLR (Pt. 999) 1 AND F.B.N. PLC. v. MAYMED CLINICS (1996) 9 NWLR (PT. 471) 195. Ground 4 of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal was not challenging any decision of the Court below and it is hereby struck out.
In my view, the only issues for determination in the appeal are:
1. Whether the Court below was right when it held that the appellant had no legal powers to arrest and detain the Respondent.
2. Whether the Court below rightly awarded N15 Million exemplary damages against the appellant and in favour of the Respondent.
Section 35(1)(c) and (6) of the 1999 Constitution provides in part as follows:
“35(1) Every person shall be entitled to his personal liberty and no person
11
shall be deprived of such liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure permitted by law-
(c) for the purpose of bringing him before a Court in execution of the order of a Court or upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, or to such extent as may be reasonably necessary to prevent his committing a criminal offence;
(6) Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person; and in this subsection, “the appropriate authority or person“ means an authority or person specified by law.”
In a resume, the case of the Appellant is that, it was empowered to arrest and detain the Respondent under Section 3 (1) (f) (i) of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (Amendment) Act 2007. Section 3(1) (f) (i) of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (Amendment) Act 2007 provides as follows:
(1) The Corps shall-
…
(f) have power to arrest with or without a warrant, detain, investigate and institute legal proceedings by or in the name of the Attorney General of the Federal
12
Republic of Nigeria in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Nigeria against any person who is reasonably suspected to have committed an offence under this Act or involved in any:
(1) Criminal activity.”
Learned counsel for the Appellant nowhere pointed out what criminal activity the Respondent was arrested and detained for. I have read the counter affidavit of the Appellant to the affidavit in support of the Respondent’s application. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit, the deponent deposed as follows:
“4. That I know as a fact a petition was written to the Respondents Office titled “PETITION IN RESPECT OF OBNOXIOUS WITHDRAWAL OF MONEY BY ONE MERCY KWADA TIZHE OF RESQUE INTERNATIONAL MAIDUGURI BORNO STATE FROM THE ACCOUNT OF DR. KALEB BULUS FILLI (ACCOUNT NO. 201263356) FIRST BANK PLC. DATED THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016.
5. That the petition letter is hereby attached to this Counter Affidavit and marked as Exhibit ‘A’.”
Exhibit A annexed to the Appellant’s counter affidavit although not so marked or marked at all, is an incomplete document. This is because the
13
document referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit made reference to a statement of account, forged cheques and signatures used by the Respondent attached to the letter. These documents form part of Exhibit A and have been detached from it. Evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. See Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011.
As learned counsel for the Respondent pointed out, the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the Respondent was legally arrested and detained. This the appellant failed to do by not showing for what alleged offence the Respondent was arrested.
In paragraph 30 of the affidavit in support of the application the Respondent had deposed as follows:
30. That in the head of Administration’s office, I was ordered by the said head of Administration – Mr. Samuel Onyemachi to reconcile with my husband whom he said had alleged that I was keeping extra-marital affairs and that I had forged his signature on several cheques and withdrew several sums of money from his First Bank Account during the period he traveled outside the country.<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>
</br<>
14
Samuel Onyemachi who the Respondent alleged pressed it on her to reconcile with her husband did not deny the averment.
Hassan Dole who deposed to the counter affidavit of the Appellant deposed in paragraph 14 that paragraph 30 of the affidavit in support reproduced above is true.
As the alleged forged cheques were detached by the Appellant from Exhibit A, as pointed out earlier, this amounted to withholding evidence. This leaves the Appellant with nothing to show that there was an allegation of forgery against the Respondent by her husband as alleged by the Appellant. What clearly stands out from paragraph 30 of the affidavit in support of the application therefore is that officers of the Appellant merely sought to compel the Respondent to reconcile with her husband.
Section 3 of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps Act 2003 as amended by Section 1 the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corp (Amendment) Act 2007 provides in part as follows:
(I) The Corps shall-
(a) Assist in the maintenance of peace and order and in the protection and rescuing of the civil population during the period of emergency;
(b) recommend to
15
the Minister the registration of private guard companies;
(c) from time to time inspect premises of private guard companies, their training facilities and approve same if it is up to standard;
(d) supervise and monitor the activities of all private guard companies and keep a register for that purpose
(i) periodically organise workshop; and training courses for private guard companies, and
(ii) seal up private guard company which operate without a valid licence;
(e) maintain twenty-four hour surveillance over infrastructures, sites and projects for the Federal, State and Local Government.
(i) enter and search any premises and seize any material suspected to have been used in vandalization or suspected proceed of vandalization,
(ii) enter and search premises of any suspected illegal dealer in petroleum product or material used by Power holding Company of Nigeria, Postal Services, Nigeria Telecommunication or for any other public utility or infrastructure;
(f) have power to arrest with or without a warrant, detain, investigate and institute legal proceedings by or in the name of the Attorney-General of the Federation in
16
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria against any person who is reasonably suspected to have committed an offence under this Act or is involved in any:
(i) criminal activity;
(ii) chemical poison or soil spillage nuclear waste, poisoning;
(iii) industry espionage or fraud;
(iv) activity aimed at frustrating any government program or policy;
(v) riot, civil disorder, revolt, strike, or religious unrest; or
(vi) power transmission lines, or oil pipelines, NIPOST cables, equipment, water board pipes or equipment vandalisation;
(g) monitor the activities of the religious bodies and trade association;
(h) monitor, investigate, and take every necessary step to forestall any planned Act of terrorism particularly
(i) cult and ethnic militia activities,
(ii) criminal activities aimed at depriving citizens of their properties or lives.”
From the array of duties assigned to the corps some of which are reproduced above it is surprising that the Appellant took it upon itself to try to force the Respondent to reconcile with her husband. Even if the Respondent
17
allegedly forged her husband’s cheques and there is nothing before the Court to support the allegation that was not the sort of criminal activity the Appellant was expected to delve into.
It is clear from all that I have stated above that Appellant had no basis for arresting and detaining the respondent.
Issue 1 is therefore resolved against the Appellant.
Under Section 35(6) of the 1999 Constitution FRN (as amended) any person unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology.
In fundamental rights actions damages automatically accrue once the respondent is adjudged to have violated the applicant’s fundamental right. Any violation of a citizen’s guaranteed fundamental right, for however short a time, must attract a penalty under the Constitution. Damages are awarded to compensate the applicant for harm done to him and punish the respondent for his conduct in inflicting the harm. See FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. & ORS. V. A.G. of THE FEDERATION & ORS (2018) LPELR-46084 SC, SKYE BANK PLC v. EMERSON NJOKU & ORS (2016) LPELR-40447 SCAND ALABOH v. BOYES (1984) 5 NCLR 830.
18
In the instant case, the Appellant having unlawfully arrested and detained, the Respondent must be penalized in damages under Section 35 (6) of the 1999 Constitution FRN (as amended). The Appellant’s protest that the detention was for less than twenty four hours must be ignored. It did not matter even if it was for a minute.
The quantum of damages however is always at the discretion of the trial Court depending on the gravity of the violation. See FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC. V. A.G. FEDERATION & ORS (SUPRA).
In the instant matter, the Court below awarded Fifteen Million Naira (N15,000,000) exemplary damages in favour of the Respondent without stating why. I am aware that the Respondent asked for Twenty-Five (N25,000,000) simplicer not exemplary damages. In my view, the Court below ought to have stated why it was awarding exemplary damages. Secondly, the Court below ought to have indicated why it was awarding Fifteen Million Naira for an arrest and detention that did not last up to twenty four hours. This was not proper.
Therefore, the Court will interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court below which awarded the sum of N15 Million to the
19
Respondent for unlawful arrest and detention of the Respondent for less than twenty-four hours.
Issue 2 is resolved against the Appellant.
The appeal is dismissed.
The claim of N25 Million for an arrest and detention for less than twenty four hours was rather extravagant and the award of N15 Million damages too generous.
The award of N15,000,000 exemplary damages to the Respondent is hereby set aside. In its place, the Appellant shall pay to the Respondent the sum of N2 million damages for unlawful arrest and detention of the Respondent.
Parties shall bear their respective costs of the appeal.
CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I read in advance a draft copy of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother James Shehu Abiriyi JCA. I agree with the decision arrived at in dismissing the appeal. I abide by the order as to costs.
ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A.: I agree.
20
Appearances:
YAHAYA MOHAMMED, ZONAL OFFICER, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, YOLA ZONAL OFFICE, with him, U. F. AHMED, PRINCIPAL STATE COUNSEL and M.S. ATTAH, SENIOR STATE COUNSEL For Appellant(s)
MFONISO G. AKPANAMASI, ESQ., with him, SAMSON KADIRI ESQ. For Respondent(s)
