THE STATE SECURITY SERVICE & ORS v. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE PEACE CORPS OF NIGERIA & ORS (2019)

THE STATE SECURITY SERVICE & ORS v. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE PEACE CORPS OF NIGERIA & ORS

(2019)LCN/13097(CA)

In The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

On Friday, the 12th day of April, 2019

CA/OW/171/2016

JUSTICES

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

ITA GEORGE MBABA Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO Justice of The Court of Appeal of Nigeria

Between

1. THE STATE SECURITY SERVICE
2.THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL STATE SECURITY SERVICE (MR. ITA EKPENYONG)
3. THE DIRECTOR STATE SECURITY SERVICE IMO STATE (ADEBOYA OLUSEGUN) Appellant(s)

AND

1. THE INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF THE PEACE CORPS OF NIGERIA
2. MOHAMMED S. IBRAHIM
3. MOKAH CELESTINE
4. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION Respondent(s)

RATIO

WHETHER OR NOT FINDINGS OF FACT NOT APPEALED AGAINST REMAINS BINDING ON PARTIES

Having not appealed against those findings and holding of the trial Court, the same remain extant, binding and conclusive on the points, and defeating the whole essence of this appeal. See the case of Ihedioha Vs Agwalemere & Anor (2018) LPELR ? 44813 CA; Anyanwu Vs Ogunewe (2014) LPELR ? 22184 (SC); Eneighe Vs Achi (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1230) 65 (SC); CPC Vs INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 493 (SC), on the effect of failure to appeal against the findings of a Court. PER MBABA, J.C.A.

WHETHER OR NOT WHERE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF A PARTY IS VOILATED, DAMAGES IS INFERRED AND ACTIVATED

The law is trite, that once it is adjudged that the fundamental rights of an Applicant has been violated, damages is inferred and activated, as the Applicant is entitled to compensation in damages. The quantum of damages awardable is always at the discretion of the trial Court, depending on the gravity of the violation and claims/parties affected. See the case of Iwununne Vs Egbuchulem & Ors (2016) 40515 CA, where it was held:
?On the allegation that the damages was not proved by credible evidence and that the person who, in Wfact, caused the damages must be established, Appellants? Counsel appeared to have forgotten that general damages need not be specifically pleaded or proved, as the same tends to flow from the act/conduct of the defendant complained against. And in fundamental rights matters, damages automatically accrue, once there is evidence of breach or violation of Applicants fundamental right(s). See Section 35(6) of the 1999 Constitution and the case of Ozide & Ors Vs Ewuzie & Ors (2015) LPELR ? 24482 CA.
In Igweokolo Vs Akpoyibo & Ors (2017) LPELR ? 41882 CA, my Lord, Ikyegh JCA held:
?Once violation of a fundamental right is proved, the award of meaningful damages in form of compensation must automatically follow whether asked for or not by the Claimant, in addition to the order of written apology. PER MBABA, J.C.A.

ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal emanated from the judgment of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/OW/CS/176/2014, delivered on 18th February, 2016, by Hon. Justice A. Lewis-Allagoa in favour of the Applicants, now Respondents. At the trial Court, the Applicants in a Fundamental Rights matter had sought the following reliefs:
(1) A declaration that the disruption, intimidation and harassment of the activities of the Applicants by the Respondents, their agents or privies was a gross violation of the Applicants Right to peaceful Assembly as enshrined under Section 40 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
(2) A declaration of the Hon. Court, that the Respondent?s have no power or right whatsoever to decree or declare that the 1st Applicant, a duly registered Organization, is proscribed.
?(3) A declaration that the incessant, harassment, intimidation, humiliation and disruption of the lawful activities of the 1st Applicant and its members as well as the molestation and ill-treatment meted out to the Applicants, especially the 3rd Applicant, on the

10th day of October, 2014 by the officers of the 1st ? 3rd Respondents, without any justifiable reason or cause, is unlawful, illegal, inhuman and unconstitutional.
(4) An Order restraining the Respondents from disrupting the lawful activities of the 1st Applicant.
(5) The sum of N510,850,000.00 (Five Hundred and Ten Million, Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only as general exemplary and special damages.? (See pages 15 and 17 of the Records of Appeal)

The Suit, a Fundamental Rights matter, was filed on 31/11/2014, supported by statements of the particulars of the parties, the reliefs sought and the grounds for the reliefs and affidavits thereof, with exhibits thereto (including previous decisions of the High Court) and a verifying affidavit.

The Respondents (now Appellants) had filed a counter affidavit, denying the claims. After hearing the case, as per the written submissions of Counsel on both sides, and considering the evidence, the trial Court held for the Applicants, that the 1st to 3rd Respondents (Appellants herein) were in breach of the fundamental rights of the 1st and 3rd Applicants, guaranteed under

Sections 40 and 34, respectively, of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, and it made orders, declaring the disruption of the activities of Applicants by 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents and agents or privies, a gross violation of the Rights of the Applicants to peaceful assembly. The Court said that the Respondents had no power whatsoever to decree or declare that the 1st Applicant be proscribed.

The trial Court, however, refused the relief three, saying there was evidence of incessant harassment molestation or ill treatment on Applicant but restrained the Respondents from disrupting the lawful activities of the Applicants or harassing, humiliating, assaulting or intimidating the 1st Applicant and their members. It declined to award the claims for N510,850,000.00 as general, exemplary and special damages, saying that Applicants should have sued the Respondents in common law, by writ, where in the special damages could be pleaded and strictly proved. It however, awarded N3,000,000.00 as damages to 3rd Applicant, acknowledging that the law supports award of damages, once an infraction of the fundamental rights of a citizen is

established, relying on the case of Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs Vs Shugaba Darman (1982) 3 NCLR 915; Odogwu Vs A.G. Federation (1996) 6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 568. See pages 255 to 259 of the Records of Appeal.

Peeved by the above decision, Appellants filed this appeal, as per the Notice and Grounds of Appeal on pages 183 to 191 of the Records of Appeal, disclosing six grounds of Appeal. They filed their Brief of Arguments on 26/7/2016, and donated six Issues for the determination of the Appeal, as follows:
(1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the medical report presented by the 3rd Respondent suggests strongly the allegation that the 3rd Respondent was manhandled by agents of the Appellants and that amounts to torture and inhuman treatment in breach of 3rd Respondent?s right guaranteed by Section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) ? Ground 1.
(2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Appellants did not give enough particulars of how the 1st ? 3rd Respondents planned to extort the youths ? Ground 2.
(3) Whether the learned trial

Judge was right in holding that the Appellant did not show evidence of complaint by NYSC, Commandant of the 1st to 3rd Respondents? invasion of their territory ? Ground 3.
(4) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the Appellants? act of disrupting 1st ? 3rd Respondents gathering was a violation of their right to freedom of association and assembly guaranteed by Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution ? Ground 4.
(5) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in awarding three Million Naira (N3m) damages against the Appellants in favour of the 3rd Respondent ? Ground 5.

The Respondents did not file any brief, and when the Appeal was heard on 12/03/19, there was evidence that the Respondents had been served with the processes. The appeal was, accordingly, heard on Appellants? brief alone.
?
Arguing the Appeal, Appellants? Counsel,S.C. Nwangele Mrs., on Issue one, said the trial Court erred in law by holding that the medical reports presented by the 3rd Respondent strongly suggested that he was manhandled by the agents of the Appellants and that it amounted to torture and inhuman

treatment in breach of the 3rd Respondent?s right pursuant to Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution. Counsel referred us to paragraphs 29 ? 30 of Applicants? Affidavit in support of their application, where they averred that their members (including 3rd Applicant) were manhandled by Officers of the 1st Appellant and that 3rd Applicant was hospitalized and incurred a bill of N80,850 (Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Naira) for his treatment. Counsel said there was no medical report to that effect and there was no averment that they (Applicants) were attached or confronted with dagger(s) by the Appellants; he added that Appellants had denied the attack in their counter affidavit (paragraph 25 thereof), which Applicants further reacted to.

Counsel referred us to the Exhibits UG1 (c)(i) and UG1 (c)(ii) (medical reports) which Appellants attached to their further affidavit in support, and said that Exhibit UG1 (c)(i) had alleged that 3rd Applicant?s face was brutalized by use of butt of a gun, while Exhibit UG1 (c)(ii) alleged the use of a dagger, but that the butt of a gun is a blunt object, as stated in the FMC report of

17/10/14, as opposed to a dagger blade, indicated in the report from Onitsha General Hospital; he said that these were two different things, opposite and contradictory ? while one was (butt of a gun), talking about a blunt object, the other (blade) was a sharp object that could pierce. He said that these evidence are contradictory, and are opposite things, on a material point. He relied on Odunlami vs Nigerian Navy (2013) 10 SCM 146. He referred us to page 218 of the Records, where he said the attention of the trial Court was drawn to the contractions but the Court looked the other way!

Counsel argued that the said exhibits, being medical reports on the same person for the same alleged attack with entirely different contents, were contradictory; that one was made 7 days after the incident and the other 2 months after the incident, respectively, and were made, just to portray the Appellants in bad light and mislead the Court. He relied on the case of Panache Communications Ltd Vs Aikhomu (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt.327) 420 to say that where a witness gives evidence which contradicts an earlier one on the same issue, both should be disregarded and

ignored, as it cannot pick and choose the evidence to believe and accept. Mogaji Vs Cadbury Nig. Ltd (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt.7) 393.

On Issue 2, that Appellants did not give enough particulars of how the 1st to 3rd Applicants planned to extort the youths, Counsel said the trial Court was wrong to so hold. He referred us to page 118 of the Records of Appeal, where Appellants in their Counter affidavit stated that they had intelligence that Applicants were collecting N1,500.00 and N40,000.00 from unemployed youths with a promise to give them jobs in a government paramilitary outfit. Counsel said that averment was admitted by Applicants (page 140 of the Records) who tried to justify the same. He said that having admitted the extortion, the burden on the Appellant had been discharged. He relied on Ayoke Vs Bello (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.218) 320 and Section 123 of the Evidence Act.
On Issue 3, Counsel answered in the negative; he said that the trial Court was wrong to hold that Appellants did not show evidence of complaint by the NYSC Commandant, that 1st to 3rd Respondents (Applicants) invaded their (NYSC?s) territory. Counsel argued that by the provisions of

National Security Agencies Act, the Appellants are Charged with the responsibility to prevent and detect any crime against the internal security of Nigeria, protect and preserve all non-military classified matters concerning the internal security of Nigeria as well as any other responsibility which the National Assembly or the President may give to it. See National Security Agencies Act, Cap N74, 1990; that Instrument No. SSS1 of 1999 also empowers Appellants to prevent, detect and investigate threats to law and order, espionage, subversion, sabotage, economic crimes of National Security dimension as well as the provision of protective security for government installations, etc.
?
Counsel said in carrying out the above functions, the Appellants gather information from different sources, which they are professionally bound to protect; that in this case they, through 3rd Appellant, received a report that the Applicants had invaded National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) camp at Nkwerre L.G.A, as security men on duty had refused to grant them access on the ground that there was no directive from NYSC Headquarters to grant them use of the camp; that the NYSC

Co-ordinator was reached by the Appellants to confirm if approval had been given to the Applicants for training and the answer was in the negative. Consequent upon this, they (Appellants) said they asked the Applicants to vacate the camp; Counsel said that Appellants were properly located to act, based on the refusal of security men on duty at NYSC camp to allow the Applicants access and the confirmation by the NYSC coordinator that no one was permitted to use the camp; he said that Appellants, as security/intelligence Agency are empowered to provide protective security to government facilities and installations and did not need to receive complaint on the invasion of the NYSC camp before they could respond. See paragraph 9.07 of the Appellants? Brief.

On Issue 4, Counsel said that the trial Court was wrong to hold that their (Appellants) act of disrupting the gathering/activities of the Applicants was a violation of their rights to freedom of association and assembly. He relied again on their paragraph 25 (a) ? (r) of their Counter affidavit on what transpired, which made them to act. He said that Applicants had presented themselves as

officials of a government para-military agency to members of the public, contrary to their status of a voluntary organization; that the act of misrepresentation was a criminal offence under Section 484 of the code; that the unemployed members of the public were attracted to the representation by the Applicants, to their detriment as they (unemployed members of the public) parted with various sums of money to Applicants; Counsel said that the inducement/extortion was corroborated by the 1st to 3rd Respondents (Applicants) in their further affidavit. He also stated that Applicants, forcefully, gained entry into a government facility without any form of approval, which is also a criminal offence, under Section 81 of the Criminal Code; Counsel said that Appellants acted within their duties by asking the respondents to leave the camp; he said that Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution is not an absolute right, going by Section 45(1) of the same Constitution; thus, Appellants were acting within the confines of the law to stop the Applicants.
?
On Issue 5, whether the trial Court was right to award N3,000,000.00 to Applicants, Counsel answered in the negative, saying

the trial Court wrongly exercised its discretion. Counsel, however, admitted that award of damages is a matter left in the discretion of the trial Court, but said that where discretion is not properly exercised, the Appellate Court can interfere. He relied on Aniekan Amos Peters Vs Asst. IGP (2001) FWLR (Pt.49) 1449; Obi Okudo Vs IGP & Ors (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt.533) 336; Umoetuk Vs UBN Plc (2001) FWLR (Pt.81) 1849. Counsel said the award was made to 3rd Applicant, who was said to have been manhandled and hospitalized, but that there was no mention of an attack with a dagger, and there was no evidence to show that he was hospitalized or treated in any hospital; thus did not place sufficient evidence to prove what attracted the award.

Counsel also argued that the 3rd Applicant had produced evidence of expending N80,850.00 for his treatment, as per page 99 of the Records of Appeal, therefore the sum of N3,000,000.00 awarded to him was outrageously high and punitive; that the trial Court did not state how it came about the figure ? N3,000,000.00. He relied on Uzor Vs Eneh (2005) ALL FWLR (Pt.264) 927, to say that damages is not awarded arbitrarily.<br< p=””

</br<

On Issue 6, whether Applicants successfully discharged the burden of proof placed on them, he answered in the negative. He asserted that he who alleges must prove; that the burden was on the Plaintiffs to adduce credible evidence to prove his claim before it became necessary for defendant to call evidence to rebut Plaintiff?s assertion. He said that the Applicants did not prove their claim, that the trial Court failed to evaluate the evidence, properly, to reach that conclusion.

Counsel urged us to resolve the issues for the Appellants and set aside the decision of the trial Court.

RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUES
I think the 6 (six) Issues distilled by Appellants for the determination of the Appeal can be reviewed into two, namely:
(1) Whether the trial Court was properly guided in law when it held that, by the evidence adduced, the Respondents had established the violation of their fundamental rights by the Appellants; and
(2) Whether the award of N3 Million damages by the Court to the 3rd Respondent for breach of his fundamental rights by the Appellants, was proper exercise of discretion.

I think the Issue 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 by the Appellants are subsumed in the Issue one, above, while the Issue 5 by Appellant is the same as the Issue 2 by this Court.

Did the Respondents establish violation of their fundamental rights by the Appellants at the trial Court?
The trial Court had held:
?In paragraph 27 of the Counter Affidavit the 1st ? 3rd Respondents stated that they worked to stop the commission of crime and any act that impact negatively on the security of the state by the Applicants. In paragraph 28 of their Counter affidavit they stated that any gathering of youths for para-military or related training without authorization from appropriate quarters portends serious security threats to the State and Nation.
I have considered these averments and I do not agree that the facts therein stated are sufficient to deny the Applicants their right to freedom of association and lawful Assembly for the followings (sic) reasons:
(1) 1st to 3rd Respondents did not give enough particulars of how the Applicants planned to extort the youths
(2) They did not show how the training of the Applicants? newly recruited members will course (sic) or

occasion the commission of Criminal Offence and threaten National Security.
(3) They did not show evidence that the NYSC Commandant had complained to them of the applicants? invasion of their territory
(4) They have not shown that the Applicants are an illegal organization.
The point is that having agreed that they stopped the applicants from freely associating, the onus falls upon them to give reasons why the Applicants should be stopped from associating. Mere allegations without concrete and material facts is insufficient. He who asserts proves. See Section 135 ? 137 of the Evidence Act.
To strengthen the case of the Applicants they have deposed to facts stating that they are legitimately Registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act. Exhibit UGI attached to paragraph 11 of their affidavit in support of motion is evident. In paragraph 12 thereof they have stated that they are a duly registered member of National Youth Council of Nigeria and the document of proof was attached as Exhibit UGII.
In their paragraph 13, they have stated that they are affiliated to the United Nations Economic and Social Council and

Exhibit UGIII was attached thereto. In paragraph 14 the Applicants stated that they have Federal Government recognition through the Federal Ministry of Education. Copies of documents proving this fact was exhibited as UGIV. In paragraph 15 they have stated that the aims and objectives of the 1st Applicant is to train, educate and re-orientate Nigerian Youths. Applicant attached exhibit UGV as evidence.
Granted that the SSS are empowered to protect the internal security of this Nation and also in the process disrupt and dispatch any unlawful association, but this duty must be carried out lawfully. Therefore, the 1st to 3rd Respondents act of disrupting a legitimate and lawful gathering of the Applicants, without them having acted unlawfully or committed any crime is in breach of their right to freedom of association and assembly guaranteed by Section 40 of the 1999 constitution.? (See pages 250 to 254 of the Records of Appeal).

I have not seen where the Appellants appealed against the above clear findings of the trial Court, that they (Appellants) admitted disrupting the lawful gathering and activities of the Respondents; did not give enough

particulars of how the Respondents planned to extort the youths; did not show how the training of Applicants? new members could cause or occasion commission of crime and threaten national security and they did not show that the NYSC Commandant/coordinator reported to them against the Applicants or that Applicants ran illegal organization. Appellants did not also dispute/contest the facts and findings of the trial Court, that 1st Respondent was incorporated under the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), to pursue its objectives, which have been accepted and endorsed/encouraged by the government. See Exhibits UGI, UGII, UGIII, UGIV and UGV. And page 230 of the Records of Appeal shows that the Respondents had obtained the permission of the relevant agencies including the NYSC Commandant, to train their 745 Cadet Officers at the NYSC Camp.
Rather than fault or challenge those findings of the Court and appeal against them, Appellants argued the appeal in a manner that rather insisted on and repeated their arguments at the trial Court, to the effect that, by the provisions of National Security Agencies Act, they are charged with responsibility to

prevent and detect any crime against the internal security of Nigeria, protect and preserve all non-military classified matters concerning the internal security of Nigeria, and empowered to prevent, detect and investigate threats to law and order, espionage, subversion, sabotage, economic crimes of national security dimension, as well as the provision of protective security for government installations. (Paragraph 9.03 of the Appellants? Brief).
They insisted that:
?In the instant case, the 3rd Appellant received a report that the Respondents have invaded National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) Camp at Nkwerre LGA as the Security men on duty had refused to grant them access on the grounds that there was no directive from NYSC Headquarters to grant them use of the camp.? (See Paragraph 9.4 of the Brief).
Of course, those were the same submission and arguments the trial Court considered, when it came by the findings and conclusion that:
(2) They (Appellants) did not show how the training of Applicants newly recruited members will course (cause) or occasion the commission of a criminal offence and threaten National Security.

(3) They did not show evidence that the NYSC Commandant had complained to them of the Applicants? invasion of their (NYSC?s) territory
(4) They have not shown that Applicants are an illegal organization.? (See page 251 of the Records of Appeal)
Appellants are expected to learn from the decisions and pronouncements of Court, to be properly guided in the discharge of their duties, but they have not and rather adopted arrogant posturing, in my view, wondering why the trial Court failed to accept their arguments and submissions!
Having not appealed against those findings and holding of the trial Court, the same remain extant, binding and conclusive on the points, and defeating the whole essence of this appeal. See the case of Ihedioha Vs Agwalemere & Anor (2018) LPELR ? 44813 CA; Anyanwu Vs Ogunewe (2014) LPELR ? 22184 (SC); Eneighe Vs Achi (2011) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1230) 65 (SC); CPC Vs INEC (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1279) 493 (SC), on the effect of failure to appeal against the findings of a Court.
?
Appellants appear to be grandstanding and showing vehemence in the assertion of their claim to duties;

apparently abhorring or resisting being faulted, once they have decided on what constitutes their line of duties. I do not think Appellants can, in the name of maintaining national security or protection of national facilities, be allowed to ride rough shod on the same public they are meant to protect, and to stampede, harass, intimidate, assault and batter the Respondents, disrupting their legitimate gathering/assembly, without any just cause.
It is common knowledge that an NYSC camp in Nigeria, in recent times, is a highly regimented, regulated and secured arena, manned by military personnel and other security agencies, and so it is difficult to imagine how the Respondents would invade such a secured place and carry out their activities of youth orientation, without the authority, permission or support of the NYSC! Appellants did not disclose who lodged complaint against the Respondents, that they invaded the NYSC Camp. If the NYSC Coordinator or Commandant at the camp did not complain against the presence of the Respondents and/or lodge complaint against their activities, and invited Appellants to act against the Respondents, Appellants have no basis to

kick and cannot explain or justify their overzealousness and meddlesomeness in the legitimate activities of the Respondents at the Camp, and the disruption of the lawful association/assembly of the Respondents, especially as there is/was an existing Court judgments in FHC/ABJ/CS/613/07 and FHC/ABJ/CS/231/2010, etc, upholding the legitimacy of the 1st Applicant, as against the hostility of Appellants herein. (See pages 55 ? 65 of the Records of Appeal).
The 1st Appellant and its leadership (including 2nd and 3rd Appellants) are established and regulated by law and must act within the confines of the law in the exercise of their discretion; they cannot be arbitrary, excessive or overzealous in service, to undermine the constitutional and fundamental rights of the members of the public they are enjoined to protect, defend and serve. The concept of national security and national interest should always be interpreted and operated in the con of service to the people and the protection of their legitimate interests and aspirations. Some words of caution and counseling were employed in the case of Elephant Group Plc vs National Security Adviser & Anor

(2018) LPELR ? 45528 CA, on the exercise of the responsibilities of the National Security, when this Court, per Georgewill JCA said:
thus the powers of the National Security Adviser, particularly, in the light of the increased use IED by the insurgents, appear to be and indeed is enormous in issues of national security, though the use of such enormous powers by the NSA, I must state, must be within the confines of the rule of law. However, in such times of resultant threats to public peace, lives and property, it appears, but regrettably so, in my view, that the rights of the individual takes the back seat in preference for public good! See Asari Dokubo Vs FRN (2009) Vol. 37 NSCOQ 1146 at 1184. See also Chief of Defence Staff & Anor Vs Modu Alhaji Tijah (Makama) (2016) LPELR ? 40818 CA? in the exercise of his enormous powers, the National Security Adviser, as I have stated earlier, must do so within the confines and dictates of the rule of law, thus, notwithstanding the enormous powers of the National Security Adviser and the undeniable fact that National Security is of utmost importance to both the Government and the

citizens, for without it there can be no safety of lives and properties of the citizens, yet the Court would not remain silent where there is proved brazen breach of the right of the citizen
Of course, the scenario painted in this case, at hand, is far less than the one in Elephant Group Plc vs NSA & Anor (supra), which related to the situation in the North East, where insurgency by Boko Haram, and the use of IED by insurgents have created a state of emergency. Even then, the NSA was still expected to act within the confines of the rule of law.
Much more compliance with the rule of law, I think, would be expected of the Appellants in this case, at hand, where the Respondents were doing their legitimate business in the NYSC camp, having been permitted to be there, as a recognized youth oriented organization, for training of their new members. See page 230 of the Records of Appeal, which shows that the Respondents had the permission of the NYSC and the government to train the youths.
I resolve the Issue against the Appellants.

On the issue of award of N3Million to the 3rd Respondent as damages for breach of his fundamental

rights, I cannot see any legitimate complaint by the Appellants, having admitted that issues of damages and amount to be awarded, resides with the discretion of the trial Court, and which must be exercised judiciously and judicially.

Appellants did not fault the exercise of the discretion by the trial Court. They merely argued that:
?The 3rd Respondent in whose favour the sum of three million naira was awarded, claimed he was manhandled by the Appellants and was subsequently hospitalized? There was no mention of attack with a dagger. There was no evidence attached to show that he was hospitalized or treated in any hospital, contrary to the legal principle that where an applicant alleges a breach of his rights, he must place sufficient evidence before the Court to prove same.? (See paragraph 11.3 of the Brief).

Appellants also argued that the records stated that ?the applicants expended the sum of Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Naira (N80,850) in treating the 3rd Respondent? but the amount awarded was outrageously high and punitive.

Appellants were, therefore, not categorical in their complaint, whether the damages was not proved or was excessive! They even conflicted themselves, when they said there was no proof of hospitalization of 3rd Respondent, and later referred to evidence of expending N80,850.00 Naira to treat him!

The fact is that the trial Court had held the Appellants liable for violation of the fundamental rights of the Respondents. It had also found, as a fact, that the 3rd Respondent was assaulted and his right to the dignity of his person violated, contrary to Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended. See pages 256 ? 258 of the Records, of Appeal. See also page 231 of the Records wherein it was stated that the Appellants manhandled the 3rd Respondent and he sustained serious injury and lacerations.

Appellants had stated the circumstances under which Appellate Court can interfere with the discretion of the trial Court in award made by the trial Court, namely, where:
(1) The trial Court has acted under a mistake of law; or
(2) Acted in disregard of principles; or
(3) Under misapprehension of facts; or
(4) Had taken into account irrelevant matters or failed to take into account relevant matters

(5) Or where injustice will result, if the Appeal Court does not interfere;
(6) Where the amount awarded is ridiculously low or ridiculously high, that it must have been wholly erroneous estimate of the damage. See Aniekan Amos Peters Vs Asst. Inspector General of Police (2001) FWLR (Pt. 49) 1449; Obi Okudo Vs I.G.P & Ors (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt.533) 336; Umoetuk Vs Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2001) FWLR (Pt.81) 1849.

I am afraid Appellants have not established any of the above principles, in this case, to warrant our interference with or review of the N3Million damages awarded by the trial Court.

fact, caused the damages must be established, Appellants? Counsel appeared to have forgotten that general damages need not be specifically pleaded or proved, as the same tends to flow from the act/conduct of the defendant complained against. And in fundamental rights matters, damages automatically accrue, once there is evidence of breach or violation of Applicants fundamental right(s). See Section 35(6) of the 1999 Constitution and the case of Ozide & Ors Vs Ewuzie & Ors (2015) LPELR ? 24482 CA.
In Igweokolo Vs Akpoyibo & Ors (2017) LPELR ? 41882 CA, my Lord, Ikyegh JCA held:
?Once violation of a fundamental right is proved, the award of meaningful damages in form of compensation must automatically follow whether asked for or not by the Claimant, in addition to the order of written apology

I resolve this Issue against the Appellants too, and on the whole, dismiss the Appeal, for lacking in merit. Appellants shall pay the cost of this Appeal, assessed at Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000.00) only.

<br< p=””
</br<

THERESA NGOLIKA ORJI-ABADUA, J.C.A.: I agree.

IBRAHIM ALI ANDENYANGTSO, J.C.A.: I had read before now, the judgment just delivered by my brother Hon. Justice Ita George Mbaba, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and conclusion.
?I also dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit. I made no orders as to costs.

Appearances:

S.C. Nwangele (Mrs.)For Appellant(s)

Not representedFor Respondent(s)

Appearances

S.C. Nwangele (Mrs.)For Appellant

AND

Not representedFor Respondent