LawCare Nigeria

Nigeria Legal Information & Law Reports

NPF & ORS v. AHMADU (2020)

NPF & ORS v. AHMADU

(2020)LCN/14402(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(YOLA JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, July 17, 2020

CA/YL/86/2018

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

1) NIGERIA POLICE FORCE 2) THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ADAMAWA STATE 3) INSPECTOR BELLO YAYALLI APPELANT(S)

And

KABIRU AHMADU RESPONDENT(S)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT THE MERE ALLEGATION OF CRIME AGAINST A SUSPECT IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS SERIOUSNESS CAN NOT OPERATE TO CURTAIL THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE SUSPECT

In Duruaku v. Nwoke (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 815) 351 at 395, Paras. E- F, it was held thus:
“The mere allegation of crime or wrongdoing against a suspect irrespective of its seriousness cannot operate to curtail the fundamental rights of the suspect nor can it operate to justify the incarceration and torture of the suspect. The person who infringes or breaches the constitutional rights of the applicant has the onus to justify such breaches. An arrest pending investigation is unconstitutional. In the instant case where the 4th and 5th respondents failed to investigate the offences the appellants allegedly committed before detaining them, the trial Court erred by not granting them damages sought for infringement of their constitutional rights”. PER BAYERO, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT CASES ARE DECIDED ON EVIDENCE

It is trite law that cases are decided on evidence. Evidence includes oral testimony on oath, affidavits and documents admitted in Court through witnesses or exhibited in an affidavit. It definitely does not include the argument of counsel in a written address. The written address of a counsel no matter how brilliant does not substitute for evidence. See Hayatu Umar vs. State (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 72 at 78. PER BAYERO, J.C.A.

ABDULLAHI MAHMUD BAYERO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading  Judgment): This is an Appeal against the Ruling of the Federal High Court, Yola delivered on 23rd May, 2017 in Suit No. FHC/YL/CS/11/2017 by B. B. Aliyu J. The brief facts of the case was that, officers and men of the 1st and 2nd Appellants led by the 3rd Appellant raided (stormed) Zaranda Street, Yola in mufti on the 16th day of May 2016 wherein they arrested the Respondent simply because he requested the 3rd Appellant and his colleagues to identify themselves. The audacity of the Respondent and asking for an identification card from the almighty police officers was what infuriated the 3rd appellant. That the Respondent was then arrested, taken to the police station and locked up in the police cell of the Doubeli Police Station, Jimeta-Yola. That throughout the night, the Respondent was beaten and marched upon by the Appellants until he slipped into coma. That it was only when the 3rd Appellant and his colleagues saw the state they had left the Respondent that they attempted to take him home. That the Respondent’s father refused to accept him in this condition insisting that the 3rd

1

Appellant and his colleagues took the Respondent away from the house in a healthy state. That the 3rd Appellant and his colleagues then carried the Respondent in their vehicle to a Specialist Hospital Yola where they were referred to take the Respondent to the Federal Medical Centre, Yola.

​That the 3rd Appellant with his men then carried the Respondent in his unconscious state to the Federal Medical Centre Yola, the Respondent remained unconscious for 30 days. That he was admitted at the Federal Medical Centre Yola for 56 days; continued receiving further treatment as an outpatient after his discharge from the hospital. That the Respondent then filed an action at the FHC Yola Judicial Division seeking to enforce his Fundamental Human Right. Based on the affidavit evidence of parties, the Federal High Court Yola gave judgment in favour of the Respondent against the Appellants. Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed this Appeal by their Notice of Appeal filed on 22nd June 2017. The Record of Appeal was transmitted to this Court on 10/07/2018. The Appellants’ Brief was filed on 22/11/2018 but deemed properly filed and served on 23/09/2019. The

2

Respondent’s Brief was filed on 3/10/2019. In the Appellants Brief, three issues are distilled for determination thus:
1. Whether or not the trial Court’s refusal to consider the Appellants written address duly filed and served will not amount to infringement of right to Fair Hearing as enshrined under the 1999 Constitution (as Amended)? (Distilled from Ground One).
2. Whether or not the Respondent had established by affidavit evidence placed before the trial Court that his fundamental right has been breached to warrant the Court gave judgment in his favour? (Distilled from Grounds 2 and 3).
3. Whether or not the judge was right to award the sum of N5,000,000.00 as compensation against the Appellants for the arrest and detention of the Respondent done in line with the law having regards to the circumstances, facts and evidence before the Court? (Distilled from Grounds 4 and 5).

​On issue one, it was submitted that the refusal of the trial Court to consider the Appellants’ final written address in support of their counter affidavit duly filed and served amounts to breach of Appellants’ fair hearing. That where a

3

person alleging breach of Fair Hearing has established such breach as in the instant appeal, the breach vitiates such proceeding rendering same null and void – Usani v. Duke (2004) 7 NWLR (Pt. 871) 11

​On issue two, it was submitted that the Fundamental Rights of the Respondent has not been breached by the Appellants. That the Appellants denied all the allegations of facts level against them in their counter affidavit.

According to Counsel, the Respondent has not proved unlawful arrest, detention or torture to warrant the award of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.000) in his favour against the Appellants. That the Appellants in their counter affidavit gave evidence to the effect that the Respondent was not even one of the culprits but only came out when they arrested the culprits, obstructed them from taking away the culprits in the process, the Respondent in an attempt to escape was arrested and detained at Doubeli Police Station. (Pages 34 – 35 of the Printed Record). Counsel also referred to exhibits RA and RB respectively.

​That the Police are empowered to arrest and detain any person who is reasonably suspected to have committed an

4

offence – Fawehinmi v. Inspector General of Police (2002) FWLR (Pt. 108) 1355 at 1378, Paras. C – E.

That Section 4 of the Police Act, Section 29 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 17 – 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Section 214(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended), Sections 18(J) and 44 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015) empowers the Nigeria Police to arrest and detain any person reasonable suspected to have committed an offence – Atakpa v. Ebeto (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1447) 549.

According to Counsel, in the instant Appeal, the Respondent committed the offence against the Appellants by obstructing the Police and aiding the culprits to escape lawful arrest and same is admitted by the Respondent at paragraph 4 of his further and better affidavit (Pages 47 – 48 of the printed Record) – Tega Esabunor & Anor. v. Dr. Tunde Faweya & 4 Ors. (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 478) 380 at 395 D – E. That the Appellants’ action should have succeeded on this ground alone, even without more.

As to issue three, it was submitted that

5

Section 35(1)(c)  of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria permits the deprivation of personal liberty reasonably suspected to have committed an offence for the purpose of bringing a person before a Court upon reasonable time – Kalu v. F.R.N. (2016) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1516) 1 SC. That the Respondent’s right under Section 35 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 can be curtailed under such circumstances – Ekanem v. Asst. IGP (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 420) 775 at 785 Para. D.

​According to Counsel, the trial Court erred in law when it held that the arrest of the Respondent was illegal and failed to avert its findings to the authorities on the subject. That the award of compensation of N5,000,000.00 against the Appellants by the trial Court is unreasonable and unwarranted considering the circumstances of the case and the economic reality of the country – CBN & 1 Or. v. Okojie (2015) Vol.25 LRCN 64 Ratio 16. He urged the Court to allow the Appeal and set aside the ruling of the lower Court. In the Respondent’s Brief, a sole issue is donated for determination thus:
“Whether the ruling of the trial Court granting the reliefs

6

sought by the Respondent for the enforcement of his Fundamental Human Rights is not right having regards to the totality of the affidavit evidence presented before the lower Court?

​It was submitted that going by the totality of facts presented before the lower Court by the parties through their affidavit evidence, the decision of the lower Court granting the reliefs sought by the Respondent cannot be faulted.

That the Respondent’s case as evinced from affidavit evidence at the trial Court is that he was arrested by armed men in mufti who claimed to be Police Officers. That the arrest of the Respondent was triggered by the feeling of annoyance and infuriation on the part of the 3rd Appellant when the Respondent requested that the 3rd Appellant and his other colleagues who accosted the Respondent and his friends should identify themselves. That this was met with brutal force of unjustifiable measure as the Respondent was manhandled and bundled into a tricycle (keke) and taken to the Doubeli Police Station where he was beaten and battered by the men of the 1st and 2nd Appellant led by the 3rd Appellant till he lost consciousness. That he was

7

returned home the next day in a comatose state by the Police officers which included the 3rd Appellant. (Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Respondent’s affidavit at Pages 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Printed Record).

According to Counsel, his father refused to accept him from the Appellants in this near death state. That the Police officers took him to the specialist hospital Yola where he was admitted for one day and then the 3rd Appellant and his men were advised to take the Respondent to the Federal Medical Centre Yola, which they did. That the 3rd Appellant and his men took the Respondent to the Federal Medical Centre as advised where he was admitted and treated. The Respondent was unconscious for weeks. (Pages 15-16 of the Printed Record). That the facts as deposed to by the Respondent in the affidavit was never effectively challenged or disproved in the Appellants’ counter-affidavit thus leaving the lower Court with no choice than to find the averments proved – A.G. Plateau State v. A.G. Nassarawa State (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt. 266) 1227 SC; Orji v. D.T.M. (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt. 519) 999 at 1022-1023 SC.

8

That the case of the Appellants as stated in their Counter Affidavit was so riddled with contradictions and that the lower Court had no choice than to make the following findings “but note that the medical report clearly stated that the applicant was taken to the medical Centre (not Specialist Hospital) by the staff of the Doubeli Police Station. It means that the 3rd Respondent did not tell the truth when he said they drove the applicant at the request to Specialist Hospital and left them there, but he later went back to find out whether the Applicant was acting, but found out that the Applicant had been moved from the Specialist Hospital. He stated all these knowing fully that it was him and his colleagues that took the Applicant in coma to the Federal Medical Centre”- (Page 77 of the Printed Record). That the above quoted finding and holding of the lower Court is a key finding and holding on the evidence led by the Respondents and against which there is no challenge and which this honourable Court of Appeal ought to act upon same findings being valid and subsisting – Institute of Health v. Anyip 2011 5 SCNJ 250 at 259; Nigerian Bank For Commerce & Industries v. Integrated Gas Nigeria Ltd & 1 Or. ​

9

(2005) 1 SCNJ 104 at 116. That the beating, battering and physical assault meted on the respondent in the Police Cell by the appellants amounts to torture, and torture is expressly spelt out to be a violation of the provisions of Section 34 of the Constitution which guarantees the right of the Respondent to the dignity of his person. That the totality of the affidavit evidence presented before the trial Court reveal that the Respondent was unlawfully arrested because he stood up to unidentified Police officers in mufti to request for proper identification.

According to Counsel, while it is settled law that the right provided under Section 35 of the Constitution is not absolute, the circumstances upon which it could be derogated from are carefully outlined in the subsections, that the circumstances under which a citizen merely requesting that armed mufti men claiming to be Policemen do identify themselves to him does not fall part of the circumstances under which the right can be derogated from. That the Respondent also attached certain documents in proof of his case which the lower Court

10

evaluated and found to be reliable. That exhibit A consists of the pictures of the Respondent in an unconscious state taken by his brother. Exhibit C is his medical report from the Federal Medical Centre, Yola. That the medical report states that the Respondent was admitted in a comatose state on the 18th of May 2016, and was found bleeding from the ear and was managed as a case of severe head injury with paraparesis.

That the evidence presented before the lower Court reveals a clear infraction of the fundamental rights of the Respondent and the duty of the Court in the face of such cogent, compelling and consistent evidence is to grant the reliefs sought and the lower Court granted them. That the learned trial judge properly evaluated the affidavit evidence in arriving at the decision of granting the reliefs sought by the respondent. According to Counsel, the facts presented by the Appellants in their defence provided no lawful justification for the violation of the rights of the Respondent. That the Appellants did not deny that they took the Respondent home and to the first and second hospitals in a comatose state with bleeding ears and broken ribs.

11

That the Appellants have also not denied that they paid for some of the Respondent’s drugs and treatment. That the Appellants have not denied that they did not identify themselves to the Respondent upon his request.

That the Respondent was unlawfully arrested and detained and that the unlawful arrest occurred when he was bundled up by the Appellants into a tricycle and detained at the Doubeli Police station, because he requested armed men in mufti to identify themselves. That his dignity of human person was violated throughout the night he was detained by physical assault and torture. That the Appellants have argued that the lower Court’s refusal to consider the Appellant’s written address amounts to denial of fair hearing. According to Counsel, the written address of a counsel no matter how brilliant it is does not substitute evidence – Hayatu Umar v. State (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 72 at 78.

​On the quantum of damages awarded to the respondent which the Appellants described as being unreasonable, unwarranted and excessive, Counsel submitted that it is trite that a victim of a fundamental right violation does not need to expressly

12

request for compensation or damages from the Court. He referred to Section 35(6) of the Constitution which provides that “any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person.” He also cited the case of Jim-Jaja v. C.O.P Rivers State (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 665) 203 at 215, Paras. G-H. That the Court can award punitive damages against persons who have violated the fundamental right of citizens – Ahuruonye v. Ikonne (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 811)1233 at 1294, Para. F. He urged the Court to dismiss the Appeal and to affirm the Judgment of the lower Court.

In my humble view, the sole issue that calls for the determination of this Appeal is:
“Whether the ruling of the lower Court granting the reliefs of the Respondent for the enforcement of his Fundamental Human Rights was wrong having regards to the totality of the affidavit evidence placed before the lower Court”.

The Respondent’s case and claims before the lower Court is based on the violation of his fundamental rights to dignity of the human person and personal liberty as enshrined

13

under Sections 34 and 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999(as amended).

The question of infringement of fundamental rights is largely a question of fact and does not so much depend on the dexterous submissions of counsel on the law. It is the facts as disclosed in the affidavit evidence that is actually examined, analysed and evaluated to see if the fundamental rights have been eviscerated or otherwise dealt with in a manner that is contrary to the Constitution and other provisions on the fundamental rights of an individual. At paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Respondent/Applicant’s supporting affidavit (Pages 13 to 16 of the Printed record) reads:-
“5. That some men came in mufti and asked us to stand-up for search we simply obeyed.
6. That I then asked them to identify themselves, the 3rd respondent brought out a pistol and pointed it at me, I politely told him that I was expecting him to show me his official identity card not a gun and got angry and arrested me.
7. That the 3rd respondent took me in a tricycle, keke napep, to Doubeli Police Station where I was put into their

14

cell without informing me of any offence that I committed or any allegation against me.
8. That I was begging the 3rd respondent to release me and he said in Hausa “ba kasan yan chin ka ba, sai naji maka da dare” meaning “you claimed to know your right I will deal with you tonight”.
9. That while I was in the cell of the respondent that same night, the 3rd respondent with some other men of the 1st and 2nd Respondents came in and drag me from the cell and started beating me, they also kicked me and even marching on me.
10. That after a while as I was in very much pain, the other officer left while the 3rd respondent kept on beating and marching me until I passed out while I was crying for help.
11. That subsequently I woke up and found myself at the Federal Medical Centre Yola feeling excruciating pain all over my body.
12. That I was informed by my brother Mijinyawa Ahmadu on 12th December 2016 at about 2:30pm at our house at No. 7 Gassol Street, Jimeta-Yola and I verily believe him as follows:
a. That on 17th May 2016 some police men from Doubeli Police Station brought me into the house unconscious to our

15

parents in his presence.
b. That our father asked them what happened and refused to accept me in that condition informing them that when they took me away on 16th May 2016 I was hale and hearty and conscious.
c. That when our neighbors and other people started coming into our house to find out what was happening, the policemen requested us to meet them at Specialist Hospital Yola.
d. That the policemen took me to Specialist Hospital Yola and he followed them along with my parents.
e. That at the Specialist Hospital Yola, I was examined by the Doctors who referred my case to Federal Medical Centre Yola and the policemen took me to the Federal Medical centre Yola.
f. That when they took me to Federal Medical Centre Yola, the policemen abandoned me there in coma at mercy of my poor family and well-wishers.
g. That at the Federal Medical Centre Yola, I was in coma for 30 days, completely unconscious, and he caused picture of me to be taken in that state which have been shown to me and are attached and marked as EXHIBIT A.
h. That it was after the said 30 days that I came to as earlier stated and felt pain over me.
i. That

16

when I awoke I could not stand up and could not move most parts of my body.
j. That I also could not talk and it took a long time before I started regaining the use of my senses and started learning to stand and walk again.
k. That I also could not control my ability to urinate and defecate and he and my parents had to assist in cleaning me up for all through my stay in the Hospital.
l. That I was eventually discharged from the hospital upon the doctor’s approval even while I was still unable to use my senses properly.
m. That I was hospitalized at Federal Medical Centre Yola for 56 days before I was discharged.
13. That I started regaining consciousness while I was at the hospital when I woke up in pains as if the policemen were still beating me.
14. That I gradually became conscious of my surroundings but could not move my body and use my organs normally though I have since learnt how to walk again and I now walk slowly but I still use adult pampas which I started using while in hospital at much cost to my parents and I still use it till date as I still do not have full control of my ability to urinate and excrete.”

17

The Respondent’s case as evinced from the affidavit evidence above is that he was arrested by armed men in mufti who claimed to be Police Officers. It further shows that the arrest of the Respondent was triggered by the feeling of annoyance and infuriation on the part of the 3rd Appellant when the Respondent requested that the 3rd Appellant and his other colleagues who accosted the Respondent and his friends should identify themselves.

The affidavit further shows that this simple, harmless and civil request made by the Respondent was met with brutal force of unjustifiable measure as the Respondent was manhandled and bundled into a tricycle (keke) and taken to the Doubeli Police Station where he was beaten and battered by the men of the 1st and 2nd Appellant led by the 3rd Appellant till he lost consciousness; and later returned home the next day in a comatose state by the Police Officers which included the 3rd Appellant.

​The depositions further revealed that his father refused to accept him from the Appellants in this near death state; and that the Police Officers took him to the Specialist hospital Yola where he was

18

admitted for one day and then the 3rd Appellant and his men were advised to take the Respondent to the Federal Medical Centre Yola, which they did. It further shows that the 3rd Respondent and his men took the Respondent to the Federal Medical Centre as advised where he was admitted and treated. From the contents of the affidavit it is also clear that the Respondent was unconscious for weeks and required special medical care. It further shows that he spent and as at the time of coming to Court was still spending a fortune for his treatment.

At Paragraphs 5 (a) to 11 of the counter affidavit of the Appellants as shown at Pages 34 – 36 of the Printed record it was deposed thus:
“(5) a. That on the 16/5/2016; myself and colleagues got an intelligence information that there was a gang of Indian hemp dealers and smokers who were currently assembled at Zaranda Street Jimeta-Yola and engaging in the act of selling and smoking of Indian hemp.
b. That myself and four other colleagues of mine proceeded to the venue in plain clothes to avoid easy detection and escape of the culprits.
c. That we surrounded the culprits; identified

19

ourselves and proceeded to search them and in the result found them in possession of Indian hemp.
d. That we arrested about five in numbers and as we were about to take the culprits to the station, the Applicant emerged with a group of friends and started threatening us that unless we release his friends, he will not allow us take them to the station.
e. That in the mixed of the commotion, about three of the culprit escaped.
f. That when he noticed that his friend escape, and knowing fully well that we would arrest him, the Applicant jumped into a deep gutter and started running. We ran after him, arrested him, and took him and the remaining culprits to the Doubeli Police Station.
g. That the Applicant and two others were locked up in the same cell at the Police Station.
6. That paragraph 9, 10 and 11 not true. I never dragged, beat, kicked nor marched on the Applicant while at the cell nor any of my colleagues did.
7. That further to the above, the Applicant while at the cell complained of body pain as a result of jumping into the deep gutter and bruises he sustained in the process of running. Attached herewith and marked as

20

Exhibit ‘RA’ & ‘RB’ are the statement of one Danladi Buba (one of the culprits who was also arrested and locked up in the same cell with the Applicant) and the statement of the Applicant myself.
8. That we felt the Applicant was acting but when he persisted, the D.P.O. asked us to take him and hand over to the family.
9. The Applicant was the one who directed us to his family house and we handed him over to his relations.
10. Applicant’s relations requested that we drive them with the Applicant to the Specialist Hospital and we did.
11. That we later went to ascertain whether he was truly acting, but were told that the Applicant was no longer at Specialist Hospital.”

From the two affidavits reproduced above, it is clear that although the right to individual’s liberty under Section 35 of the Constitution is not absolute, the circumstances upon which it could be derogated from does not include where a citizen merely requested armed mufti men claiming to be Policemen to identify themselves to him.

​In their defence, the Appellants stated that the 3rd Appellant and his colleagues got an

21

intelligence report that a gang of Indian hemp dealers and smokers were assembled at Zaranda Street, Jimeta-Yola, smoking and selling Indian hemp. That upon their arrival at the scene, they surrounded the culprits, searched and arrested them. That the culprits were five in number and the Respondent emerged with a group of friends and caused the escape of 3 of the suspects. That the Respondent ran away upon seeing that he had caused the suspects to escape. That he jumped into a gutter close by and ran inside the gutter until he was caught by the policemen. That the Respondent and the two other arrested suspects were locked up at Doubeli Police station. That at night, the Respondent started complaining of body pains as a result of the bruises he sustained from running.

That the next day, they drove the Respondent home and further upon the request of the Respondent’s parents, drove him to Specialist Hospital. The evidence before the lower Court showed that no one but the Respondent was arrested on that day. The Appellants have failed to produce the names of the 2 persons arrested alongside the Respondent on that day as claimed by them. See Pages 61-63

22

of the Printed record. The Appellants did not deny that they took the Respondent home and to the first and second hospital in a comatose state with bleeding ears and broken ribs. The Appellants only deny that they beat up the respondent. But since the Respondent was healthy and full of life when he was detained by the Appellants, and spent the night with the Appellants, then, they are definitely responsible for him.
The logical conclusion to be reached is that the Respondent was assaulted to a coma state by the Appellants and this is torture. The evidence of the Appellants provide no answer to how and why the Respondent slipped into a coma in one night in their police cell with bleeding ears and broken ribs and neck. In Duruaku v. Nwoke (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 815) 351 at 395, Paras. E- F, it was held thus:
“The mere allegation of crime or wrongdoing against a suspect irrespective of its seriousness cannot operate to curtail the fundamental rights of the suspect nor can it operate to justify the incarceration and torture of the suspect. The person who infringes or breaches the constitutional rights of the applicant has the onus to justify such

23

breaches. An arrest pending investigation is unconstitutional. In the instant case where the 4th and 5th respondents failed to investigate the offences the appellants allegedly committed before detaining them, the trial Court erred by not granting them damages sought for infringement of their constitutional rights”.

One also wonders that the Nigeria Policemen now chauffer suspects to their homes. The Appellants have also not denied that they paid for some of the Respondent’s drugs and treatment. The Appellants have also not denied that they did not identify themselves to the Respondent upon his request. They have not made any defence to the threats made against the Respondent. The appellants have argued that the lower Court’s refusal to consider the Appellants’ written address amounts to an infringement of the right to fair hearing. It is trite law that cases are decided on evidence. Evidence includes oral testimony on oath, affidavits and documents admitted in Court through witnesses or exhibited in an affidavit. It definitely does not include the argument of counsel in a written address. The written address of a counsel no matter

24

how brilliant does not substitute for evidence. See Hayatu Umar vs. State (2018) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1617) 72 at 78. The Appellants had their right to fair hearing expressed on their affidavits and the lower Court dutifully examined all the contending depositions of the Appellants as against those of the Respondent before coming to a decision. The sole issue for determination is resolved in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants. This Appeal is unmeritorious and is accordingly dismissed. On the issue of damages of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as being excessive raised by the Appellants, it is indeed excessive. One Million Naira is hereby awarded as damages in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellants. The Judgment of the lower Court is hereby affirmed except for the award of damages. No cost awarded. Parties to bear their respective costs.

CHIDI NWAOMA UWA, J.C.A.: I agree.

JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.: I read in advance in draft of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother Abdullahi Mahmud Bayero JCA.
​As I read the judgment the aphorism

25

“police is your friend” kept ringing in my head. With friends like the 3rd appellant and those who manhandled or shall I say brutalized the Respondent, he sure did not need a worse enemy.
The Appellants could not justify what the Respondent went through in their counter affidavit. The Court could not be misled by the Appellants.

​My learned brother has dealt extensively with the issue for determination; I adopt his reasoning and conclusions in the lead judgment in dismissing the appeal.
I abide by all other orders in the lead judgment including the order as to cost.

26

Appearances:

Yahaya Mohammed, ACSC., U. F. Ahmed P.S.C., B.Y. Abana, L.O. and M.S. Attah S.S.C. Federal Ministry of Justice For Appellant(s)

J. Ifegwu, Esq., For Respondent(s)