SEGUN TANIPINU & ORS v. MR. MAUYON AKAPO & ORS
(2019)LCN/13109(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Monday, the 15th day of April, 2019
CA/L/1109/2015
JUSTICES
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. SEGUN TANIPINU
2. BABATUNDE AYIVOJI
3. ENGINEER ADEWUNMI
4. YONRONFUN SAMAKO
5. DOSU AYIVOJI
6. ABU ORIENT Appellant(s)
AND
1. MR. MAUYON AKAPO
2. MR. KOLADE AKAPO
3. MR. ABIODUN AKAPO
4. STEPHEN AKAPO Respondent(s)
RATIO
WHETHER OR NOT A DECISION OF THE COURT NOT APPEALED AGAINST IS DEEMED ACCEPTED AND BINDING ON PARTIES
The central dispute between the parties being civil in nature as it arose from a land dispute and formed the fulcrum of the decision of the Court below, the appellants who did not appeal against the said specific finding are deemed to have accepted it as binding on them vide Isiaka v. Amosun (2016) 9 NWLR (pt. 1518) 417, Braithwaite v. Dalhatu (2016) 13 NWLR (pt. 1528) 32, C.P.C. v. I.N.E.C. (2011) 18 NWLR (pt. 1279) 493, Chitra Knitting and Weaving Manufacturing Company Limited v. Akingbade (2016) 14 NWLR (pt. 1533) 487 at 508. The Court below was therefore right in holding that the police or law enforcement agents should not have been used or enlisted by the appellants to settle the civil dispute between them and the respondent vide Diamond Bank Plc v. Opara (2018) 7 NWLR (pt. 1617) 92, EFCC v. Diamond Bank Plc (2018) 8 NWLR (pt. 1620) 61, Mclaren v. Jennings (2003) 3 NWLR (pt. 808) 470, Igwe v. Ezeanochie (2009) LPELR ? 11885 cited by the Court below in its judgment in page 232 of the record. PER IKYEGH, J.C.A.
JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appeal is against the decision of the High Court of Justice of Lagos State (the Court below) whereby it awarded damages of N2 million in favour of each of the 1st ? 3rd respondents at the Court below to be paid jointly and severally by the 7th and the 8th respondents at the Court below; N2 million in favour of the 4th respondent to be paid by the 6th respondent at the Court below; and N500,000 in favour of each of the respondents against the appellants for causing the wrongful arrest and the detention of the respondents in police cell from 22nd to 26th May, 2014 for alleged disruption of the assignment of surveyors on a disputed parcel of land, which the respondents had earlier reported the six surveyors working on it to the police who arrested them and took statements from the surveyors before releasing them on bail.
The affidavit evidence indicated that the respondents and the appellants were disputing ownership over a parcel of land situate at Igbogbele village, Badagry, in Lagos State. The 7th and 8th respondents at the Court below wrote a petition to the
1
police against the respondents herein, that they were seeing destroying crops and other palm produce on the disputed parcel of land. The 5th respondent at the Court below then caused the respondents herein to be arrested and detained in police cell at FCID Alagbon, Ikoyi, Lagos for four days on account of the said allegation in the petition to the police to that effect.
The Court below decided the case on affidavit evidence and resolved that the dispute between the parties that brought in the police was civil in nature in that it was rooted in a land dispute which did not warrant police intervention by way of the arrest and detention of the respondents herein for four (4) days. The Court below then awarded the damages (supra) against the appellants in favour of the respondents.
Aggrieved, the appellants filed a notice of appeal with five grounds of appeal challenging the decision of the Court. The appellants? brief of argument was filed on 28.11.17, but deemed as properly filed on 05.12.17. It was argued in the brief that the respondents did not discharge the burden of proof that the appellants caused their arrest and detention, as it was not
2
established that the appellants initiated the arrest of the respondents; that since an allegation of crime was involved in the matter, the respondents were obliged to prove it beyond reasonable doubt; and that having failed to do so, the Court below should have dismissed the action for the enforcement of the respondents? fundamental rights.
It was also argued that the Court below based its decision on suspicion, therefore the Court is entitled to re-evaluate the evidence under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act to arrive at a decision as the Court below failed to properly evaluate the evidence citing in support the cases of Woolmington v. DPP (1935) A.C. 462, or (1944) 10 WACA 161, SPDC (Nig.) Ltd. v. Chief Olarewaju (2003) FWLR (pt. 140) 1640 at 1663, P.H.M.B. v. Edosa (2001) FWLR (pt. 41) 1799 at 1809, Koiki and Ors. v. Magnusson (2000) FWLR (pt. 63) 167 at 187 ? 188, Panalpine World Transport Ltd. v. Wariboko (1975) 1 S.C. 29 read with Sections 131 (1) (2), 132, 133 (1) (2) and (3) and 138 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011, (Evidence Act); and that based on these submissions the appeal should be allowed and the decision of the Court below
3
set aside.
The respondents? brief was filed on 26.11.18, but deemed as properly filed on 28.11.18. The respondents contended in the brief that having established their arrest and detention the burden was on the appellants to show that the arrest and detention were lawful citing in support the cases of Fajemirokun v. C. B. (CI) Nig. Ltd. (2002) 10 NWLR (pt. 774) 95, Iyere v. Duru (1986) 5 NWLR (pt. 44) 665, Ejefor v. Okeke (2000) 7 NWLR (pt. 665) 363; and that having not proved the lawfulness of the arrest and detention, the Court below was right in holding that the appellants initiated the arrest and detention of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents for the purpose of keeping them off the disputed parcel of land; therefore the appeal should be dismissed and the decision of the Court below upheld.
?The reply brief was filed on 03.01.19. It was argued therein that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the further and better affidavit in page 60 of the record and paragraphs 4 ? 6 of the affidavit in support of the originating summons which is in page 7 of the record are self-contradictory showing the respondents cannot be believed in the account of their
4
arrest, therefore there was no need to challenge the self-contradictory affidavit evidence citing in support the cases of Ekekeugbo v. Fiberesima (1994) 3 NWLR (pt. 335) 707 at 731, Balogun v. Shonibare (1997) 3 NWLR (pt. 493) 317 at 331, R.E.A.N. v. Aswani ile Ltd. (1992) 3 NWLR (pt. 227) 1 at 13; and that the documents attached to the affidavit show the Nigeria Airforce, not the appellants, surveyed the land and caused the arrest of the respondents thus destroying the truth of the respondents? case; consequently, the appellants urged that the appeal should be allowed and the decision of the Court below set aside.
The Court below made a finding of fact that the petition to the police which led to the arrest and detention of the respondents in police cell for four days was actuated by land dispute between the parties; and that the appellants used the civil dispute to cause the arrest and detention of the respondents for four days. The central dispute between the parties being civil in nature as it arose from a land dispute and formed the fulcrum of the decision of the Court below, the appellants who did not appeal against the said specific
5
finding are deemed to have accepted it as binding on them vide Isiaka v. Amosun (2016) 9 NWLR (pt. 1518) 417, Braithwaite v. Dalhatu (2016) 13 NWLR (pt. 1528) 32, C.P.C. v. I.N.E.C. (2011) 18 NWLR (pt. 1279) 493, Chitra Knitting and Weaving Manufacturing Company Limited v. Akingbade (2016) 14 NWLR (pt. 1533) 487 at 508. The Court below was therefore right in holding that the police or law enforcement agents should not have been used or enlisted by the appellants to settle the civil dispute between them and the respondent vide Diamond Bank Plc v. Opara (2018) 7 NWLR (pt. 1617) 92, EFCC v. Diamond Bank Plc (2018) 8 NWLR (pt. 1620) 61, Mclaren v. Jennings (2003) 3 NWLR (pt. 808) 470, Igwe v. Ezeanochie (2009) LPELR ? 11885 cited by the Court below in its judgment in page 232 of the record.
Since the arrest and detention of the respondents were established, the appellants having not justified causing or instigating the arrest and detention of the respondents by the police for four days as found by the Court below, the Court below was right in finding the appellants liable for the infringement of the respondents? fundamental rights to personal
6
liberty and freedom of movement (arrest and detention) videFajemirokun (supra), Iyere (supra) and Ejefor (supra) cited by the respondents. See also Sandy v. Hotogua and Anor. (1952) 14 WACA 18 at 20, Ngelegia v. Tribal Authority Nongowa Chiefdom (1953) 14 WACA 325 at 327.
In the result, I find no substance in the appeal and hereby dismiss it and affirm the decision of the Court below.
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, J.C.A.: I agree with the leading Judgment prepared and rendered in this appeal by my learned brother Joseph Shagbaor Ikyegh JCA. I have nothing extra to add.
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.: I read the judgment of my learned brother JOSEPH SHAGBAOR IKYEGH, JCA and I have no hesitation in agreeing with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by my learned brother.
I also find the appeal unmeritorious and it is hereby dismissed and the decision of the lower Court is affirmed.
7
Appearances:
Counsel to the Appellant and Respondents were served hearing notice but were unrepresentedFor Appellant(s)
For Respondent(s)
Appearances
Counsel to the Appellant and Respondents were served hearing notice but were unrepresentedFor Appellant
AND
For Respondent
