UGBORIMILI MICRO FINANCE BANK LTD & ANOR v. IGBOKWE & ORS
(2022)LCN/16567(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Wednesday, March 30, 2022
CA/AW/274/2010
Before Our Lordships:
Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Court of Appeal
Frederick Oziakpono Oho Justice of the Court of Appeal
Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. UGBORIMILI MICRO FINANCE BANK LIMITED 2. MRS. MAUREEN I. EZEIKE APPELANT(S)
And
1. MRS. GOODNESS IGBOKWE 2. INSPECTOR GEN. OF POLICE 3. ASP. ESTIN UMOH-IPO, AREA 10, ABUJA RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO
THE POSITION OF THE LAW WHERE A COMPLAINT MADE TO THE POLICE IS FOUND TO BE BASELESS AND MALICIOUS
It is trite that where a complaint to the Police is found to be baseless, malicious and unfounded, the trial Court is at liberty as in this case, to label such an unlawful conduct as Witch Hunt. In such a situation, the Appellant should be damnified in damages. See SPDC (NIG) LTD V. OLAREWAJU (2002) 16 NWLR (PT. 792) at 72. PER NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A.
CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The Appellants herein instituted this appeal against the judgment of the Anambra State High Court, Onitsha Division presided over by P. C. Obiora, J,. The judgment was delivered on the 30th of June, 2010 in Suit No O/IM/2010.
The 1st & 2nd Appellants were the 3rd & 4th Respondents in the Court below, the 1st Respondent herein was the Applicant in the Court below, while the 2nd & 3rd Respondents herein were the 1st & 2nd Respondents in the Court below. The 1st Respondent was a customer of the 1st Appellant and the 2nd Appellant was the Manager of the 1st Appellant.
In a considered judgment the learned trial Judge ordered the Appellants to return to the 1st Respondent the six bales of fairly used clothes (Okirika) unconstitutionally impounded by the Appellants and in addition to pay to the 1st Respondent the sum of N50,000 (Fifty Thousand Naira) as general damages. This appeal is predicated on the said judgment.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT FACTS:
The 1st Respondent as the applicant in the lower Court instituted the action for enforcement of her Fundamental rights to personal liberty and property as guaranteed respectively under Sections 35 and 44 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended).
After hearing the Counsel for the 1st Respondent and that of the Appellants based on the processes filed and exchanged by the parties to the suit, the learned trial Judge, inter alia, ordered the Appellants to return to the 1st Respondent the six bales of the fairly used clothes unconstitutionally impounded by them and also pay the 1st Respondent the sum of N50,000.00 as general damages. See pages 129–133 of the Record of appeal.
Learned Counsel for the Appellants S. O. I. Nkem Esq. distilled five issues for determination as follows:
i. “Whether the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondent’s application in the face of flagrant abuse of Court process by the 1st Respondent.
ii. Whether the trial Court was right in its comparison and inference to have held that 1st Respondent was not the person that signed Exhibit R4, dated 23/10/09 and titled: UNDERTAKEN TO LIQUIDATE INDEBTEDNESS OF N187,264.
iii. Whether the trial Court was right in granting the reliefs not sought for by the 1st Respondent to the 1st Respondent.
iv. Whether the party who actuated her arrest and detention can complain.
v. Whether there is a material contradiction in the 1st Respondent’s case at the Court below.”
Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, Ikenna Izuegbulem on his part, distilled a sole issue for determination thus:
“Whether or not the learned trial Judge was right to hold in his judgment that the 1st Respondent proved her case against the Appellants and consequently make the declarations and orders contained at pages 114–115 of the Record.”
It is on record that the Preliminary Objection filed by Counsel for the 1st Respondent was withdrawn and therefore struck out.
The submissions of both Counsels are contained in their respective briefs as well as the Reply brief, I do not intend to reproduce same here.
I will make use of the sole issue formulated by learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent in the determination of this appeal.
Going through the Records, it is not in doubt that the 1st Respondent was detained for five days and that the detention was illegal.
The 1st Respondent was detained purely as a result of the business transaction between her and the Appellants. It was also obvious that she was detained sequel to the report made to the 2nd & 3rd Respondents.
The 2nd & 3rd Respondents did not respond to the allegation of the illegal detention leveled against them, that allegation remains uncontroverted since only the 2nd & 3rd Respondents could validly controvert or debunk the said allegation through a counter affidavit.
Consequently, the averments of the Appellants at page 43 of the Record of Appeal, paragraph 21 does not hold water since they cannot speak for the Police Officers who detained the 1st Respondent.
In paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the Appellants’ counter affidavit at pages 41–42, it is clear also that the Appellants also impounded the six bales of fairly used clothes belonging to the 1st Respondent.
It is trite that where a complaint to the Police is found to be baseless, malicious and unfounded, the trial Court is at liberty as in this case, to label such an unlawful conduct as Witch Hunt. In such a situation, the Appellant should be damnified in damages. See SPDC (NIG) LTD V. OLAREWAJU (2002) 16 NWLR (PT. 792) at 72.
This was a simple commercial transaction which the Bank could have handled better by suing the 1st Respondent to recover the loan and any other entitlement. There was absolutely no justification in resorting to self-help and making a mere commercial transaction look like a criminal case. By unconstitutionally impounding six bales of fairly used clothes and unlawfully detaining the 1st Respondent for five days, the Appellants overstepped their bounds and infringed on the Fundamental Rights of the 1st Respondent as enshrined under Sections 34, 35 and 44 of the Constitution.
The learned trial Judge was therefore well within the law to have damnified the Appellants in damages.
In all, this appeal is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of Anambra State High Court, Onitsha Division, delivered on the 30th day of June, 2010 by P. C. Obiora, J, in Suit No O/IM/2010 is hereby affirmed.
One Hundred Thousand Naira as costs against the Appellants.
FREDERICK OZIAKPONO OHO, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading the draft of the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, CHIOMA E. NWOSU-IHEME, PhD-JCA and I am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions in adjudging this appeal as utterly lacking in merit. It is therefore dismissed by me. I also subscribe to the consequential orders made thereto in the lead judgment.
PATRICIA AJUMA MAHMOUD, J.C.A.: Having read before now, the judgment of my learned brother CHIOMA NWOSU-IHEME, JCA, I am in complete agreement with his Lordship that this appeal is without merit. It fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
I abide by the order of costs made by my learned brother.
Appearances:
S. O. I. Nkem, Esq, For Appellant(s)
Ikenna Izuegbulem, – for 1st Respondent For Respondent(s)
