SHEDRACK OZIDE & ORS v. GEOFREY EWUZIE & ORS
(2015)LCN/7792(CA)
In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
On Friday, the 27th day of February, 2015
CA/OW/99/2010
RATIO
TORT: TORT OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION; WHICH BEARS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE UNLAWFUL ACTS/OMISSION OF THE POLICE, DONE TO THE FALSE/MALICIOUS
The law is trite, that where a party lodges false and/or malicious complaint(s) with the Police against another, and causes the Police to use their coercive powers, wrongly, at the pleasure of the party who lodges the complaint(s), he must, together with the Police, bear responsibility for the unlawful acts/omission of the Police, done to the victim of the false/malicious complaint/report. See the case of Ogbonna Vs Ogbonna (2014)23 WRN 48; Chief (Hon.) James Clement Ohanedum & Anor Vs C.O.P & Ors (supra); Udeagha Vs Nwaogwugwu (2013)LPELR 21819 CA; Ejiofor Vs Okeke (2000)7 NWLR (pt.665)363; Agbakoba Vs SSS (1994) NWLR (pt.351)475, Salihu Vs Gana & Ors (2014) LPELR 23069 CA; Isheno Vs Julius Berger Nig. Plc (2008) 6 NWLR (pt.1084)582. per. ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
DAMAGES: DAMAGES IN COMPENSATION; WHETHER DAMAGES IN COMPENSATION, LEGALLY AND NATURALLY FOLLOW EVERY ACT OF VIOLATION OF A CITIZEN’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND WHETHER THE ISSUE OF WHAT COMPENSATION TO AWARD IS ALWAYS, EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE TRIAL COURT
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 cover 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) The issue of what compensation (quantum) to award is always, exclusively, within the province of the trial Court. See UBA PLC Vs Ajabule & Anor (2011) LPELR – 8239 (SC); (2012)7 WRN 19; Ogbonna Vs Ogbonna (2014) 23 WRN 48.
I do not see any reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the trial Court, especially as Appellant was not complaining against the quantum thereof, whether it was too high or too low, or was arrived at under application of wrong principles of law. See the case of Oceanic Securities International Ltd. Vs Balogun (2013) All FWLR (pt.677) 633; (2012) 38 WRN 143; (2012) All FWLR (Pt.643) 1880 per. ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.
JUSTICES
ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
PETER OLABISI IGE Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
FREDERICK O. OHO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria
Between
1. SHEDRACK OZIDE
2. HYACINTH IWUJI
3. EMMANUEL OZIDE Appellant(s)
AND
1. GEOFREY EWUZIE
2. EMMANUEL NWOBI
3. DENNIS OKORO
4. LIVINUS OZIDE
(1ST SET OF RESPONDENTS)
AND
1. DANIEL OSUMBO
(ANTI POLITICAL STATE CID OWERRI)
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE IMO STATE
(2ND SET OF RESPONDENTS) Respondent(s)
ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of Imo State High Court in Suit No:HME/IM/2005, delivered on 01/02/2006 by Hon. Justice I.O. Agugua in favour of the 1st set of Respondents, who were the Applicants at the lower Court, seeking the enforcement of their fundamental Rights. The lower Court had awarded N100,000.00 to the Applicants against the 1st to 3rd Respondents (Appellant’s) for breach of their (Applicants) fundamental rights, and N10,000 as cost. The Court also awarded N20,000.00 to Applicants against the 4th Respondent.
Applicants (now 1st set of Respondents) had prayed for enforcement of their fundamental rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement and dignity of their human persons and for the sum of N300,000.00 as damages for the breach of their said rights. The motion ex-parte was heard on 25/1/2005 and leave granted for the filing of the Motion on Notice. On being served with the processes, the 1st to 3rd Respondents (who are Appellants herein) filed a notice of preliminary objection, challenging the competence of the fundamental rights application. The parties filed their processes and filed written addresses. On 6/6/2005, when the Applicants addressed the Court, 1st to 3rd Respondents (Appellants) were represented by Ibegbulem Esq., and 4th and 5th Respondents were represented by E.A. Eze Esq (ASP).
Both Counsel for the Respondents asked for adjournment to address the Court (make their replies) and were obliged. When the case, finally, came up for reply on 12/12/05, Counsel for the Respondents were absent and the trial Court held:
“This matter is for Reply of (sic) Respondents’ Counsel, Applicants’ Counsel having addressed Court on 6/6/05. There being no reason for the absence of Respondents Counsel, I take it he has waived his right of address. Case is accordingly adjourned to 1/2/2006 for judgment.”
See page 79 of the Records. On that date (12/12/05) parties were present, except 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents.
The judgment was delivered on 1/2/06 and the said:
“Applicants have deposed to the fact that they are family men who left their businesses and their homes to attend to the police invitations as enumerated. There is nothing in these entire proceedings to show that the 4th Respondent (police officer) was acting with knowledge and directive of the 5th Respondent. 5th Respondent, I hold has no responsibility or connivance or condonation of these arbitrary acts of the 4th Respondent. Police Officers must be wary of being inveighed (sic) into a situation in which they find themselves becoming partisan agents of wrong doers in the pursuit of a private vendata…” (page 89 of the Records).
That is the judgment which Appellants appealed against, as per their Notice of appeal on pages 94 to 96 of the Records.
Appellants, however, filed Amended Notice of Appeal with the leave of this Court, granted on 10/5/12.
In the Amended Notice of Appeal, Appellants raised 3 grounds of appeal. They filed their brief on 14/5/12, also with the leave of Court, granted on 10/5/12, and formulated 2 issues for determination, as follows:
(1) Whether the Counter-affidavit of the Appellants were inconsistent in all material particular with that of the 2nd set of Respondents in this appeal to warrant the lower Court granting the reliefs sought by the 1st set of Respondents (Ground 1)
(2) Whether the Appellants breached the fundamental rights of the 1st set of Respondents as claimed, and was the award of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) against Appellants, proper? (Grounds 2 and 3).
The first set of Respondents filed their brief on 25/6/13, which was deemed duly filed on 25/5/14. They adopted the two issues distilled by the Appellants, and tried to modify them, as follows:
(1) Whether the 1st set of Respondents proved that their fundamental rights were breached by the acts of the 2nd set of Respondents and the Appellants to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought.
(2) Whether the Applicants at the Court below were entitled to damages of N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) against the Appellants and the 2nd set of Respondents.
The 2nd set of Respondents filed no brief.
Arguing the Appeal on 2/2/15, learned Counsel for the Appellants, Ezeohiri Fred Njemanze Esq, (who settled the brief), on issue one, submitted that the trial Court misdirected itself when it held that the Counter-affidavit of the Appellants was inconsistent and contradictory to that of the 2nd set of Respondents on the ground that the 2nd set of Respondents were silent on the question and issue raised by the Appellants; he argued that the 1st set of Respondents had informed the police that Appellants murdered one Ignatius Iwuji; that Appellants’ Counter affidavit, paragraphs 11 to 13 (pages 28 to 30 of the Records), expressly stated those facts that the 1st set of Respondents made the allegation of murder against them (Appellants) and that the 2nd set of Respondents confirmed the same as per their paragraphs 1,5 and 11 of their Counter affidavit (pages 37- 38 of the Records). He also relied on Exhibits B and C annexed to Appellants’ Counter affidavit (page 60 of the Records). He argued that the 1st set of Respondents did not counter or controvert the fact of the allegation of murder against them (Appellants), rather they initiated the fundamental rights action to shield themselves from being arraigned for false information. He submitted that nobody is entitled to go to Court in order to shield himself from criminal investigation and prosecution.
He relied on the case of A.G. Anambra State Vs Chief Chris Uba (2005)15 NWLR (pt.947)44 at 46. He said that the trial Court is under a duty to consider every material fact or evidence, documentary or oral before it, before reaching its conclusion – Olujinle Vs Adeagbo (1988)2 NWLR (pt.75)238.
He further argued that Appellants did not arrest and/or detain the 1st set of Respondents; that a mere report by Appellants of crime by 1st set of Respondents cannot make them (Appellants) responsible for the acts of the Police, as Appellants have a right to make such report to the Police. He relied on Gbajor Vs Ogunburegui (1961) All NLR 835; Ezeadukwu Vs Maduka (1997) 8 NWLR (pt.518)635 at 667; Okanu Vs COP (2001) CHR 407 at 411.
Counsel added that, to establish responsibility against Appellants, the 1st set of Respondents had a duty to prove that Appellants were actively instrumental or set the machinery in motion for the arrest and detention of Applicants. He relied on Fajemurokun Vs CN (CL) Nig. Ltd. (2002)10 NWLR (pt.774) 95; Isheno Vs Julius Berger Nig. Plc (2008)6 NWLR (pt.1084)582 at 597; Adefumilayo Vs Odunjan (1958)WNLR 31.
Counsel submitted that, where a citizen reports a matter to the Police or any law enforcement agency for the exercise of their discretion, including the discretion to investigate, neither the Police nor the citizen would be liable for breach of fundamental right, if the report to the Police discloses a prima facie case against the Applicant. He relied on Bassey Vs Afia (2010) All FWLR (pt.531)1477 at 1500-1501.
He also said that the Lower Court is bound to adjudicate on matters or issues properly submitted by the parties, and not on matters not raised by the parties, otherwise the Court would be making a case for the parties. Atolebi Vs Odudu (1990)6 NWLR (pt.157)384. Counsel said that the 1st set of Respondents, according to the police, were about to be charged to Court for false information when they (1st set of Respondents) brought the fundamental rights action to stall their arraignment. He said that even if the 2nd set of Respondents were silent on some allegations in the affidavit (which they did not concede), their lapses, if any, has nothing to do with the Appellant’s case; that the mistake of the Police cannot be visited on them (Appellants) Ezeadukwu Vs Maduka (supra).
On issue 2, Appellants’ Counsel submitted that a person cannot be punished for a wrong he did not directly or indirectly commit and the Court cannot award damages in vacuum; he said that Appellants did not breach the fundamental rights of the Applicants.
Referring to page 89 of the Records where the Court held that the 4th Respondent breached the fundamental rights of the Applicants, just to satisfy the 1st to 3rd Respondents (Appellants), Counsel said that the trial Court did not show how the right of power of arrest and investigation conferred on the Police led to breach of Applicants’ fundamental rights and how the Police did this to satisfy the Appellants; that there was no proof that Appellants instigated or set the machinery in motion for the arrest and detention of the Applicants. He said there was no basis for the award of N110,000.00 damages against the Appellants.
Counsel relied on the case of Onagoruwa Vs IGP (1991)5 NWLR (pt.195) 593, to say that the Police are at liberty to investigate any allegation of commission of crime made by any person and that liability does not attach to the private citizen who merely names the suspect; that the Applicant has a duty to prove that he was in fact arrested and/or detained at the prompting of the appellant.
Counsel also relied on Anegbesola Vs IGP (2010)3 NWLR (pt.1)201 at 202 (a decision of High Court by Ajakaiye J.) and urged us to resolve the issues for the Appellants and allow the appeal.
Responding, C.O. Ejiogu Esq, Counsel for 1st set of Respondents, submitted that the Court below rightly assumed jurisdiction in the case and determined the case for them. He relied on the case of Amale Vs Sokoto Local Govt. (2012) All FWLR (pt.618) 833. He said that the facts and grounds relied upon by them and the affidavit verifying the facts were not traversed by the Appellants and so were deemed admitted. He relied on the case of UNIBEZ NIG. LTD. VS COMMERCIAL CREDIT LYONAIS NIG. BANK LTD. (2005) ALL FWLR (pt.267) 1378 at 1380; LEEDWAY ASS. CO. LTD VS ZECO NIG. LTD. (2004) ALL FWLR (Pt.210)1268.
He added that the Court is permitted to rely on and use an affidavit which is unchallenged or not controverted. Major L.S. Umoru (RTD) & Anor Vs Zibiri & Ors (2003) FWLR (pt.172) 1920, Thompson Vs Arowolo (2003) FWLR (pt.164)315.
Counsel referred us to the Counter-affidavits of the Appellants and of the 2nd set of the Respondents on pages 29-30 and 37-38 of the Records, respectively, where they articulated their defence, and said that, if the two defences are put side by side, one can glean the contradictions and admissions which lent credence to the case of the 1st set of Respondents. He added that where the case of a party in a proceeding is manifestly contradictory with the case of their witnesses or supporter, the trial Court, seised with the hearing of such matter, must reject the pieces of evidence. He relied on the case of Okadigbo Vs Emeka (2012) All FWLR pt 623 at 1869; Chabasaya Vs Anwasi (2010) All FWLR 526 at 839.
Counsel further said that, whereas every citizen has a right to report the commission of a crime to the Police, the same does not provide a cover for malicious complaints, where one constantly and maliciously invokes the powers of the Police to breach the fundamental rights of another. He relied on the case of Fajemirokun Vs Commercial Bank Nig. Ltd. & Anor (2009) All FWRL (pt. 487)1. He added that, where applicant proves that he was illegally arrested and/or detained, with extortion, it behooves on the arrestor to justify such arrest and detention. He relied on C.O.P. Ondo State Vs Obolo (1089)5 NWLR (pt.180) 130; Iyere & Anor Vs Duru (1986)5 NWLR (pt.44)665. He submitted that the trial Court was right in its decision.
On issue 2, Counsel submitted that, having established that Appellants and the 2nd set of Respondents (4th Respondent rather) had violated the fundamental rights of the Applicants, the natural thing to follow was damages. He relied on Sections 45(1) and 35(6) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, Odogu Vs AGF (1996) Vol. 40/41 LRCN 1454-1455.
Counsel submitted that the right to determine damages awardable resides with the trial Court and the Appellate Court will always refrain from interfering with the award of damages made by the Lower Court, except where it is shown to be manifestly too high or too low, or where it was based on a wrong principle of law. Odogu Vs AGF (supra) at 1459; Ijabode LG Vs Bologun (1991)2 LRCN 287; Onaga & Ors Vs Micho & Co (1961)1 ANCR 324.
Counsel added that there is no evidence to suggest that the award of N100.000.00 to the Applicants was too high (out of N300,000.00 claimed) or that it was based on a wrong principle of law. He urged us to resolve the issues against the Appellants and dismiss the appeal.
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES
I shall consider this appeal on the two issues distilled by the Appellants, and adopted by Respondents, with modifications. But I shall consider the two issues together, as they are, basically whether the Lower Court was right to hold that the fundamental rights of the 1st set of Respondents had been breached, and whether it was right to award N100,000.00 damages to Applicants, against the Appellants.
It should be noted, from the onset, that only N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naria) (Not N110,000.00), was awarded against the Appellants, while N20,000.00 (twenty thousand naira) was awarded against the 4th Respondent – a Police Officer (who has not appealed against the decision). And that Ten thousand Naira (N10,000.00) was only the cost of the action! Appellants were, therefore, wrong to state in their briefs that the trial Court awarded N110,00.00 to the Applicants as damages for the breach of their fundamental rights, against the Appellants.
It must also be noted that Appellants’ 1st issue was a poser:
“Whether the Counter-affidavit of Appellants were inconsistent with that of the 2nd set of Respondents in this appeal to warrant the Lower Court granting the reliefs sought by the 1st set of Respondents.”
But the entire arguments by the Appellants made no attempt to bring out the alleged areas of inconsistencies (if any), nor the holding of the trial Court, relying on the alleged inconsistencies in the counter-affidavit of the Appellants and those of the 2nd set of Respondents. Appellants rather argued, strenuously, that the Applicants (1st set of Respondents) did not reply to their affidavits and that of the 2nd set of Respondents, that they (Applicants) made false report to the Police, alleging murder against them (Appellants); that the Police was about to arraign them (Applicants) for giving the Police false information, at the time they brought the action for breach of fundamental rights; that they did so to stall their prosecution! They also argued that, by law, they (Appellants) were entitled to report infraction of the law to the Police and could not be held responsible for the acts of the Police, who were entitled to investigate the complaint, using their discretion on how to go about it!
The arguments above, however, appear to have veered off the issue for determination, raised by the Appellants! By law, the arguments proffered on a given issue for determination must be in tandem with the ground of appeal and issue distilled therefrom, to be valid, and worth consideration, otherwise, it becomes a mere hot air and noise. See the case of Obosi vs. NIPOST & ORS. (2013) LPELR – 21397 (CA). In the Ukachukwu & ORS. vs. Ihijirika & Ors. (2014) LPELR – 24102 (CA) it was held that a complaint that arguments (of issues for determination) do not flow from the grounds of appeal and the issues distilled by the Appellants, is a valid point which can dislodge an appeal.
Appellants’ ground 1, from which the issue one was derived, was:
“The learned Trial Judge mis-directed himself on law when he held, that the Counter-affidavit of the Appellants is contradictory to the one filed by the 2nd set of Respondents and therefore goes to no issue”
As earlier stated in this judgment, neither that complaint nor the issue thereof, was what the Appellants canvassed in the brief of argument, and so the arguments went to no issue!
On page 87 of the Records, the trial Court had held as follows:
“I agree with the applicants’ Counsel that the Counter-affidavits of 1st to 3rd Respondents are contradictory to the one by 4th to 5th Respondents. In the 1st instance, the 4th and 5th Respondents are silent on the allegation by 1st to 3rd Respondents that it was the applicants that 1stly informed the Police that the 1st to 3rd Respondents were the murderers of one Ignatius Iwuji and again the applicants told the Police later that 1st to 3rd Respondents were armed robbers. Since the Police were silent on this issue I hold that this allegation cannot be relied or acted upon by this Court…”
Of Course, Appellants had tried to rely on their allegation that Applicants (1st set of the Respondents) gave false information to the Police on the murder of one Ignatius Iwuji to establish justification for the Applicants’ arrest and detention. But the Counter-affidavit by the Police mentioned nothing about the said allegation of murder, and the same amounting to false information, but rather alleged invocation of juju against the Applicants!
In paragraphs 1,3,6,7 and 11 of the Counter-affidavit of 4th and 5th Respondents, they stated as follows:
“(1) That I am the Investigating Police Officer (IPO) in this case of false information and invocation of juju which gave rise to this suit, by virtue of which I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the matter
(5) That a prime facie case of false information and invocation of juju has been established against the applicants
(6) That the invitation dated 05/08/2004 and 08/09/2004 and annexed as Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’, respectively, are true and that the Applicants refused to honour them.
(7) That the sole reasons for the invitations were founded on notifying them on the date for Court
(11) That the applicants are only pre-emptive of the Police by instituting this Suit so as to evade a criminal charge which is already lying in wait against them…” (See page 39 of the Records)
Meanwhile, the Counter-affidavit of the 1st to 3rd Respondents’ (Appellants herein) had said nothing about invocation of juju by the Applicants. Rather, they (Appellants) alleged in paragraphs 11 to 13, thus:
(11) That the applicants first informed the Police that the 1st to 3rd Respondents were murderers of one Ignatius Iwuji, which was false and malicious. As if that was not enough dangerously, false and wicked accusation, the Applicants informed the Police later that the 1st to 3rd Respondents were armed robbers.
(12) That the Police invited the Applicants to substantiate their accusations/allegations; that is the sin the Police committed.
(13) That the Applicants want to use Court process unlawfully to avoid being charged to Court for false information against us.
After considering the above pieces of evidence, the trial Court said:
“How the 4th respondent did not deem it right, in the face of the allegations made by the applicants, to Exhibit before this Court the documents of the Criminal charge which, according to him, is “already lying in wait against them” (applicants). It is therefore difficult to ascertain what the criminal charge, if any, is about. Nothing also was said by the Police about the allegation that despite the order by this Court on 25/1/2005 for stay of all actions and matters on this issue pending the determination of this action on notice, the 4th Respondent on 3/2/05 invited and haunted applicants to charge them to Court for invocation of juju. As it where, that was the only time the 4th Respondent actually told the applicants what the invitations to the Police was all about….” See page 87 of the Records.
Of Course, Appellants did not appeal against those findings of the trial Court, which appeared to have knocked off the basis of invitation of the Applicants by the Police on 3/2/05 over the allegation of: “false information and innovation of juju, after the trial Court had made an order on 25/1/05 for “stay of all actions and matters pending the determination of the this action on notice”
The Appellants and the 4th & 5th Respondents were, therefore, daring the Court, and acting in confrontation, when they further pressed their invitation on 3/2/05 and haunted the Applicants to further arrest and charge them to Court for invocation of juju!
A Court order comes to effect, from the date of issue or pronouncement, and must be respected and obeyed. See Ouguleye Vs Aina (2012)28 WRN 41, holdings 8 and 9; (2013) All FWLR (pt.602)1681; Labour Party Vs INEC (2008) 35 WRN 89; (2008)13 NWLR (pt.1103)73.
The fact that the Police stated a different reason(s) for the arrest and harassment of the Applicants from Appellants’ allegation of false information, that they (Appellants) were murderers and armed robbers, shows that the harassment of the Applicants was founded on falsehood and malice. See the recent decision of this Court in the case of Chief Hon. James Clement Ohanedum & Anor Vs Commissioner of Police Imo State & Ors. CA/0W/175/2011, delivered on 23/1/2015, where we deprecated the use of false report to harass, haunt for and violate the fundamental rights of Applicants. We held:
“Of Course, the duties of the Police under the Police Act, or under the Nigerian Constitution, are circumscribed by the law, and must be performed, lawfully. The Police cannot act at large, aligning with mischief makers and criminal elements to become a terror to the citizens, and subject law abiding citizens to harassment, intimidation and fear.”See also Ogbonna Vs Ogbonna & Anor (2014) LPELR – 22308(CA), pp 54 -55.
It is, therefore, clear that the trial Court was right, when it found Appellants liable for breach of fundamental rights of the Applicants. They cannot, in good conscience, claim to have merely made a reasonable complaint of commission of crime against the Applicants, and nothing more, especially as the root of their quarrels (which took them to the Police) appears to be a civil dispute over land. See paragraphs 10, 11, and 12 of Appellants Counter affidavit (pages 29-30 of the Records) and paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the facts/grounds upon which Applicants’ reliefs were sought (page 25 of the Records).
Also the 4th Respondent, who appeared to be in league with the Appellants, to harass and traumatize the Applicants, did not agree with the Appellants as to why they subjected the Applicants to all the suffering, harassment, arrest and detention, enumerated in the facts stated by the Applicants – paragraphs 1 to 13. See pages 23 and 24 of the Records. Their reasons were in conflict.
The law is trite, that where a party lodges false and/or malicious complaint(s) with the Police against another, and causes the Police to use their coercive powers, wrongly, at the pleasure of the party who lodges the complaint(s), he must, together with the Police, bear responsibility for the unlawful acts/omission of the Police, done to the victim of the false/malicious complaint/report. See the case of Ogbonna Vs Ogbonna (2014)23 WRN 48; Chief (Hon.) James Clement Ohanedum & Anor Vs C.O.P & Ors (supra); Udeagha Vs Nwaogwugwu (2013)LPELR 21819 CA; Ejiofor Vs Okeke (2000)7 NWLR (pt.665)363; Agbakoba Vs SSS (1994) NWLR (pt.351)475, Salihu Vs Gana & Ors (2014) LPELR 23069 CA; Isheno Vs Julius Berger Nig. Plc (2008) 6 NWLR (pt.1084)582.
Appellants had quarreled with the award of N100,000.00 against them, saying that:
“a person cannot be punished for a wrong he did not directly or indirectly commit and Court cannot award damages in vacuum”; that “In the instant case, the Appellants did not breach the fundamental right of the 1st set of Respondents.”
(See paragraph E.I. of the Appellants brief)
Of course, I have already upheld the decision of the learned trial Court, that Appellants breached the fundamental rights of the 1st set of Respondents (Applicants) and it was right to award them damages. 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 cover 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)
The issue of what compensation (quantum) to award is always, exclusively, within the province of the trial Court. See UBA PLC Vs Ajabule & Anor (2011) LPELR – 8239 (SC); (2012)7 WRN 19; Ogbonna Vs Ogbonna (2014) 23 WRN 48.
I do not see any reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the trial Court, especially as Appellant was not complaining against the quantum thereof, whether it was too high or too low, or was arrived at under application of wrong principles of law. See the case of Oceanic Securities International Ltd. Vs Balogun (2013) All FWLR (pt.677) 633; (2012) 38 WRN 143; (2012) All FWLR (Pt.643) 1880
I resolve the issues against the Appellants and dismiss the Appeal.
Appellants shall pay N50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) to the 1st set of Respondents, as cost of the Appeal.
PETER OLABISI IGE, J.C.A.: The Judgment just delivered by my learned brother MBABA, JCA, was read by me in draft before now. I agree entirely with his reasoning and conclusion.
I also agree with the consequential orders made therein.
FREDERICK O. OHO, J.C.A.: I have had the opportunity of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother, I.G. Mbaba, JCA, just delivered. The views expressed in this judgment accord with mine and have nothing to add in dismissing the Appeal with a cost of Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000.00) only in favour of the 1st set Respondents.
Appearances
Ezeohiri Fred Njemanze Esq, K.I. Uduma Esq.For Appellant
AND
F.U. Ezeako with him C.O. Ejiogu Esq. for 1st set of Respondents.
2nd Set of Respondents
UnrepresentedFor Respondent
