ENAKARHERE & ORS v. ODUDURU & ORS
(2022)LCN/16478(CA)
In The Court Of Appeal
(ASABA JUDICIAL DIVISION)
On Thursday, March 17, 2022
CA/AS/423/2018
Before Our Lordships:
MisituraOmodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal
Joseph EyoEkanem Justice of the Court of Appeal
Abimbola OsarugueObaseki-Adejumo Justice of the Court of Appeal
Between
1. MR PAUL ENAKARHERE (President General Of Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community) 2. MR JERRY OKOROMA (Secretary Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community) 3. MR SUNDAY ERESE (Spokesman OfOkpavuerehe-Olomu Community) 4. MR KINGSLEY EMETAVWODO (Youth Chairman Okpavuerehe-Olomu Community 5. MR ABRAHM ONISHA (Youth Spokesman OfOkpavurehe-Olomu Community) (Sued For Themselves And On Behalf Of Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community In Ughelli South Local Government Area Of Delta State) APPELANT(S)
And
1. CHIEF LUCKY ODUDURU 2. JOHN CABLE 3. MRS DORIS ODIETE 4. BLESSING CABLE 5. MRS OGHENEKARO ONOVUGHAKPO 6. MRS KARO ODUDURU 7. MRS VICTORIA OBORO 8. MR OMOYOR OBORO 9. MR ICHABOR OMAVUAYE 10. MRS ICHABOR OMAVUAYE 11. MRS IMIMIRIMI YELLOW 12. MR AKPOJOTOR ODUDURU 13. MR OMOTE ONUAKPOTURIE 14. MRS ICHABOR AMREVUGHERE 15. MR OGEHENEYERHOVWO CABLE (For Themselves And On Behalf Of Those Expelled From Okpavuerehe-Olomu) RESPONDENT(S)
RATIO:
THE MATERIAL CONFLICTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PARTIES
On material conflicts in the affidavit of the parties presented at the lower Court, Counsel submitted that the Court ought to call oral evidence to resolve the contradictions before the Court can rely on any of the conflicting affidavits to reach a decision. Relying on the cases of MIKE MOMAH v VAB PETROLEUM INC (2000) FWLR (PT. 5) 806 AT 827 PARA D; ASONYE v REGISTERED TRUSTEE OF CACN (1995) 2 NWLR (PT 379) 623 AT 634; EZECHUKWU v ONWUKA (2006) 2 NWLR (PT 963) 151; LT. CDR. F. S. EBOHON v AG EDO STATE (1997) 50 LRCN 1323 AT 1338-1339. ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A
THE APPLICATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
This position has been overtaken by the decision of this Court in GOVERNMENT OF ENUGU STATE OF NIGERIA & ORS v ONIYA & ORS where MBAMBA, JCA held on thejoint applications for enforcement of fundamental human rights, that the 2017’s decision has been overtaken hence no longer the law on this issue. See also the recent case of ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONS COMPANY PLC ANOR v AKALIRO & ORS (2021) LPELR-54212 (CA).
“Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be controverted in any State in relation to him may apply to High Court in that state for redress.” Neither 1999 Constitution (as amended) nor Order 1 Rule 2 (1) of the Fundamental Human Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 defines the word “person” but in the context of Section 46 (1) of the Constitution, it refers to an individual. The adjective used in both provisions in qualifying who can apply to a Court to enforce a right is “any” which also denotes a singular and does not admit pluralities in any form. It is thus an individual right as opposed to a collective right; it encourages joint applications in locus. ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This appeal is against the judgment of the Delta State High Court, Otu-Jeremi division coram HON. JUSTICE J. E IKEDE delivered on 28th February, 2018 at pages 109-116 of the record.
The Respondents had presented the following claims for reliefs;
a. A DECLARATION that the Appellants being indigenes of Okpavuerhe-Olomu in Ughelli south Local Government Area of Delta State of Nigeria and Nigerian citizens reserve the right to stay or reside wherever they desire i.e. Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community being indigenes of same.
b. A DECLARATION that the forceful expulsion and/or banning of the Appellants and their family from the Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community in Ughelli South Local Government Area of Delta State of Nigeria is an infringement on their fundamental human right as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
c. A DECLARATION that the continuous banning by the Respondents by the Applicants from the Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community and their home where they have lived all their lives is an infraction of Applicants’ fundamental rights as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ( as amended).
d. AN ORDER of mandatory injunction compelling the Respondents to allow the Applicants return peacefully to Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community and to allow the Applicants peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their stay in Okpavuerhe-Olomu being indigene of same.
e. AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Respondents from further harassing, intimidating, beating, destruction of property and expelling the Applicants from Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community.
f. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Respondents to keep the peace and maintain law and order in Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community.
g. The sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only as special and general damages for intimidation, psychological trauma and hardship suffered by the Applicants as a result of the acts of the Respondents in expelling the Applicants forcefully from Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community and their homes.
h. Cost of this action.
The grounds upon which the reliefs are sought are;
i. The Applicants’ fundamental rights guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) have been infringed upon and being threatened by the Respondents as a result of their acts of banning and expulsion of the Appellants from Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community and their homes.
ii. The Continue banning of the Applicants from Okpavuerhe-Olomu Community and their homes which they have lived in most of their lives by the Respondents and others acting on their instructions
iii. Fundamental rights are in the realm of domestic law and they are fundamental because they have been guaranteed by the Constitution.
iv. Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) empowers the Applicants to enforce their fundamental right in a Court of competent jurisdiction if their rights has been, is likely to be contravened by the Respondents.
v. Each passing moments, the applicants are living in traumatic circumstances, psychological and extreme fear as a result of the threat and intimidation of the Respondents and as a result of being expelled from the Community and made homeless by the Respondents.
See pages 26–28 of the record.
Facts
The Respondents claim that they were expelled from Okpavuerehe-Olomu Community by the Appellants at different dates, they were beaten and their properties burnt by the Appellants. The Appellants on the other hand alleged that the Respondents left the community after threatening to burn down the Community because some of them who work at OSIOKA OIL FIELD were given two months’ notice to stop work to enable other members/indigenes of the community have the opportunity to work and benefit from the community slots.
On their refusal of the Respondents to stop work, they were forcefully expelled and ejected from their homes, farm and the community.
The lower Court entered judgment for the Respondents and the Appellants being dissatisfied with the decision, filed a Notice of appeal on 16th March, 2018 at pages 122-124 of the record. They further filed an Amended Notice of appeal on 20th September, 2018 but deemed properly filed on 9th February, 2021.
The Appellants through F. O. Akpobas Esq.; J. A. David Esq of OCHUKO AKPOBASA & CO filed their brief of argument on 20th September, 2018 and formulated the following issues for determination:
I. WHETHEROR NOT SUIT NO. HCG/M/17/2016 WAS NOT INCOMPETENT SAME HAVING BEEN INSTITUTED BY FIFTEEN APPLICANTS AND IN REPRESENTING CAPACITY
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE LOWER COURT WAS RIGHT WHEN IT HELD THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE RESPONDENTS WERE BREACHED HAVING REGARDS TO THE CONFLICTING AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE THE LOWER COURT.
The Respondents through Milton Paul Ohwovoriole SAN; Oghenetega T. Ipheghe Esq; Z. P. Rhodji (MRS) of MILTON PAUL OHWOVORIOLE, SAN & CO filed their brief filed 10th October, 2018 but deemed properly filed on 9th February, 2021 wherein two issues were formulated thus:
1. WHETHER THE SUIT IS COMPETENT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANTS AT THE LOWER COURT ESTABLISHED THROUGH THEIR CLAIM THAT THEY ALL HAVE A COMMON CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS AT THE LOWER COURT AND THAT THE VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHTS COMPLAINED OF AROSE FROM THE SAME TRANSACTION.
2. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT WAS RIGHT TO HAVE IN ITS JUDGMENT THAT THE APPLICANTS WERE ABLE TO SHOW THAT THEIR FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS WERE BREACHED BY THE APPELLANTS HAVING REGARDS TO THE OVERWHELMING AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENTS.
APPELLANTS’ ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
Appellants submitted that on the face of the Originating motion/application the suit was filed jointly by fifteen (15) different named Applicants, that is, Respondents in this appeal for themselves and on behalf of those allegedly expelled from Okpavurhe – Olomu Community. Appellants’ counsel referred to Section 46 (1) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), that it contemplates the suit being brought by a single applicant and not group or joint applicants hence this suit violates the provisions of Order II Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009.
He further submitted that Order VII Rule 1 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 provides for consolidation of several applications relating to infringement of a particular fundamental right pending against several parties in respect of the same matter, and on the same grounds. He cited the cases of R.T.F.TC.I.N v IKWECHEIGH (2000) 1 WRN 134 140 and OKECHUKWU v ETUKOKWU (1989) 8 NWLR (PT 562) 511.
Counsel referred to the Respondents’ affidavit to submit that the Respondents were all expelled from the community at different dates and ought to have filed separate actions. He relied on the cases of KPORHAROR & ANOR v YEDI & ORS (2017) LPELR-42418 (CA); DONGTOE v C.S.C. PLATEAU (2001) FWLR (PT 50) 1639 AT PARA B–C; AGBOGUNLERI v DEPO (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 480) 240 AT 261–26 PARAS. G–D.
ISSUE 2
Appellants submitted that the lower Court was wrong to have held that the fundamental rights of the Respondents were breached having regards to the affidavit evidence placed before the Court. Counsel further submitted that there was not enough to merely state that they were allegedly expelled from the community at diverse dates as contained in their affidavit. He argued that the Appellants failed to disclose or state how they were expelled and when the banning was made, where they live now and how they left. In summary, the affidavit was bereft of vital information.
In addition, Counsel argued that it’s the duty of the lower Court to properly evaluate the affidavit evidence presented by the parties, he cited OKOYE v CENTER POINT MERCHANT BANK LTD (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 441) 810 AT 834 PARA B–C;TORRI v NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OF NIGERIA (2011) 201 LRCN 1 AT 19; ONI v AKINMOLAYAN (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 799) 1076 AT 1088–1089; ESIRI v ORHONO 1 (2008) FWLR (PT 399) 532 AT 548.
On material conflicts in the affidavit of the parties presented at the lower Court, Counsel submitted that the Court ought to call oral evidence to resolve the contradictions before the Court can rely on any of the conflicting affidavits to reach a decision. Relying on the cases of MIKE MOMAH v VAB PETROLEUM INC (2000) FWLR (PT. 5) 806 AT 827 PARA D; ASONYE v REGISTERED TRUSTEE OF CACN (1995) 2 NWLR (PT 379) 623 AT 634; EZECHUKWU v ONWUKA (2006) 2 NWLR (PT 963) 151; LT. CDR. F. S. EBOHON v AG EDO STATE (1997) 50 LRCN 1323 AT 1338-1339.
Counsel submitted that the lower Court wrongly believed and relied on the address of the Respondent. He relied on Section 115 (3) & (4) of Evidence Act, 2011 to submit that the 3rd Respondent deposed to facts not within her knowledge and omitted to state the source of information. Counsel referred to paragraphs 5-15 and 17-30 of the Respondents’ affidavit evidence offends the provision of Section 115 (3) &(4) of Evidence Act, 2011for failure of the deponent to state her source of information and it ought to be struck out. The case of DR OLADIPO MAJA v MR COSTA SAMOURIS (2002) 9 NSCQR 567 was relied on in aid of the submission.
Counsel submitted that if the offensive paragraphs are struck out, there was nothing to have held that the fundamental rights of the Respondents were breached.
RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
ISSUE1
Respondents submitted that the suit was filed with leave to enforce fundamental rights of Respondents, reliefs sought, and they deposed by affidavit how and why they were forced out. He relied on the cases of IHEJIOBI v IHEJIOBI (2013) LPELR–21957; SADUIKU & ORS v OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY IFE 2 NPILR 809; EZE NDUKA v MADUKA (1997) 8 NWLR (PT 518) PAGE 635; NAWA v ATT GEN CROSS RIVER STATE (2008) ALL FWLR (PT 401) 801; FRN v IFEGWU (2003) 8 MJSC 36 AT 62; OKE v MIMIKO (2014) ALL FWLR (PT 714) 126; THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE v MRS ETTA BASSEY EPHRAIM (2014) LPELR
The Respondents’ Counsel submitted that the violation of their rights constitutes the principal relief and they established through affidavit evidence that they have common cause of action through the same violation and the right of access to Court is vested by the Constitution. They have the right to enforce their rights which are being infringed upon.
He referred to Sections 34 (1), 36, 37, 41 and 44 of the Constitution and African chartered rights to personal liberty, dignity of person, fair hearing, private and family life, freedom from harassment, freedom to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof and freedom against his moveable property or properties being taken possession of or acquired compulsorily.
Respondents submitted that the Court has a right to protect the fundamental rights of people and the Applicants are entitled to fundamental rights and misjoinder is not applicable to this case as the Appellants have not shown in what way they would be prejudiced or misled or suffer any form of injustice as a result.
In addition, Counsel submitted that the objection does not go to the jurisdiction and same ought to have been raised at the earliest opportunity and therefore are deemed to have waived their rights.
ISSUE 2
Counsel submitted that the trial Court evaluated the affidavit evidence; he referred to page 115, lines 9-15 of the record of proceedings on how they were forcefully expelled/ejected from their homes and community by the Appellants. After proper evaluation, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the Respondents were able to establish a breach of their fundamental rights and an appellate Court is usually reluctant to interfere. He relied on AMINU v HASSAN (2014) ALL FWLR (PT. 725) 205 AT 208; ANUKA COMMUNITY BANK NIG LTD v FELIX OLUA (2000) LPELR-10674 (CA).
He contended that the counter affidavit was not substantiated and the paragraphs of the affidavit do not contravene the Evidence Act. He further urged the Court to hold so and affirm the judgment.
RESOLUTION
ISSUE 1
The Claimants/Respondents had filed the action in their capacity as the Executives of Okpavuerehe–Olomu community and they have a common case, that is, they were expelled on different days for the same reason from their said hometown. They are indigenes of Okpavuerehe and they obtained leave by motion ex parte to commence this action. Much as this has been done, it is imperative to state that the ex parte application was filed on 25th May, 2016, see page 1 of the record, in which time the Enforcement Rules in place was the 2009 Fundamental Human Right Enforcement Rules which has abrogated the need for leave. The mode of commencement now is a straight application.
This appeal is on the Fundamental Enforcement Rules which has the power under Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended). The Applicants have been more particularly described in the statement of facts at pages 9-10 of the records. Furthermore, the reliefs sought are couched in fundamental rights questions for declarations.
The 2009 rules recognize the filing of class action suits and other joint applications. I refer to the preamble to the 2009 rules. The 1979 rules had to be amended to remove a number of bottle necks in the way of litigants; one of which is the filing of joint applications. See KPORHAROR & ANOR v YEDI & ORS (2017) LPELR-42418 (CA) where the Court vetoed the joint application. This position has been overtaken by the decision of this Court in GOVERNMENT OF ENUGU STATE OF NIGERIA & ORS v ONIYA & ORS where MBAMBA, JCA held on thejoint applications for enforcement of fundamental human rights, that the 2017’s decision has been overtaken hence no longer the law on this issue. See also the recent case of ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTIONS COMPANY PLC ANOR v AKALIRO & ORS (2021) LPELR-54212 (CA).
“Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this chapter has been, is being or likely to be controverted in any State in relation to him may apply to High Court in that state for redress.” Neither 1999 Constitution (as amended) nor Order 1 Rule 2 (1) of the Fundamental Human Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 defines the word “person” but in the context of Section 46 (1) of the Constitution, it refers to an individual. The adjective used in both provisions in qualifying who can apply to a Court to enforce a right is “any” which also denotes a singular and does not admit pluralities in any form. It is thus an individual right as opposed to a collective right; it encourages joint applications in locus.
In OGBONNA v AG IMO STATE (1992) LPELR-22871 AT 25, NNEMEKA AGU held that where a preamble to an enactment is as it were its preferenceor introduction the purpose of which is to portray the interest of the framers and the mischief they set out to remedy, it may sometimes serve as a key to open the understanding of the enactment.
I, in addition, rely on paragraph 3 of Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Rules) 2009 states that:
“The overriding objectives of these rules are as follows;
a) The Constitution especially Chapter iv as well as the Africa charter shall be expansively and purposely interpreted and applied with a view to advancing and realizing the rights and freedoms contained in them and affording the protections intended by them …..
b) The word overriding is more important than anything else in a particular situation”
Therefore, the joint application is proper. I resolve issue 1 in favour of Respondents.
ISSUE 2
The affidavit in support of the main application is at page 31 of the records deposed to by one MRS DORIS ODIETE, the third Applicant in representative capacity. She deposed to the affidavit on behalf of the Respondents, who are all natives of Okparverhe-Olomu. I have examined paragraphs 5-15 therein and find that thedeponent was one of the victims and therefore she spoke with the knowledge of what she knew and having qualified it in paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 of the affidavit there was no need to repeat the source of information.
On the alleged conflicts in affidavit between the Applicants and the Respondents in paragraphs 10, 11, 16-20 of the Respondents’ application and paragraphs 8, 20, 23-36 and 42 of the affidavit evidence. I have examined the two affidavits account. On the affidavit of Doris Odiete and Paul Enakarhere the President General of the same town for the 1st-5th Appellants, in paragraphs 6-8 at page 61 of the record allege that it was the Claimants who unilaterally became instruments of oppression, terror, intimidation, mayhem of monumental dimension to the community and as constituted representatives of the community with their authority served the notice to the Claimants to vacate their jobs so that other community members can benefit. It is this letter Exhibit – AA2 that gave rise to the disagreement in the town because the recipients of the said notice refused as most of them sought for the jobs on their own.
The youths and members of theAppellants kicked against their refusal. They stated that it was the Claimant that destroyed their own properties and fled the community but in paragraph 21, there is an admission which throws more light on the true situation. The 9th Applicant alleged that the sum of N250,000 (Two Hundred and fifty naira) was stolen from his house. The community sued the Applicants to the AWIRHE SHRINE to swear to an oath on the ground that they did not steal but the other Applicants insisted on swearing the oath on the ground that their properties were destroyed.
This confirmed that properties of the Claimants were indeed destroyed as contended; therefore it is not correct that they destroyed their own properties or set them ablaze. I find no contradiction in the affidavit evidence as this is a clear admission against interest and I accept it as such.
Furthermore, the Appellants alleged that they reported to the police area command Ughelli on activities of the Claimants/Respondent’s threat to the community but failed to prove this by attaching the statement of such at the police station.
In paragraphs 31–37, the Appellants catalogued threats andcounter plans to destroy. Amidst the two affidavits, it is clear that the Respondents were asked to stop their jobs at the flow station and their reluctance and refusal within the two months’ notice caused anarchy between the youth wanting to come in and the benefitting youths in the town. There was destruction of property and this led to a grave situation that all those working and asked to vacate their jobs for others to benefit became targets, their properties were destroyed in a bid to force them to leave. Therefore, there was a situation of threats, intimidation, destruction, burning of properties.
Section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) is for a breach of any person who alleges that any of the provision of this chapter; has been or threat to fundamental rights is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress, this includes suspicion of threat to fundamental life.
The Claimants/Respondents at the lower Court came under threat of their rights to own property, association and right to reside anywhere, dignity and privacy of life which stand to be threatenedor are being threatened and have actually being destroyed, expelled, and driven out of the community.
I do not find the account of the Appellants plausible, the admission has given out the real situation
I also read the reply to counter affidavit at page 86 of the record and maintained in paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 that they were expelled by the Appellants and the source of the problem was that the Respondents should choose between continuing working as executives or their jobs and the Appellants imposed themselves on the community exercising overzealous power thereby driving and ostracizing the Respondents.
I therefore agree with the lower Court that their counter affidavit is an afterthought, there was nothing to show the extent of damage allegedly caused by the Respondent leading to death of anyone, not a photograph or an elders report or even a police report.
Upon a close look at the account in the reply, it tallies with the counter affidavit which led to the oath-taking at the shrine instead of conflicting affidavits as alleged. The further affidavit together with its attachments at pages 88-90 of the record, gives a vivid detailedpicture with dates and events and names of the attacker of the fundamental rights of the Respondents by physical attack, wanton destruction of their property cumulating in forceful expulsion from the community by the Appellants who are actually causing moves to frustrate the Respondents who were executives before.
I agree that their fundamental rights were breached. The Appellants went against the constitutional provision; the current address of the deponent is not relevant here. What is important is that the Court owes a duty to protect and defend the Constitution. See Section 46 (1) of the Constitution, BUKAR v HON MINISTER, FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH (2018) LPELR–45382 (CA); CHIEF KENENTH C AJOKU v EFCC (2018) LPELR–46692 (CA); MAWA v AG CROSS RIVER STATE (2008) ALL FWLR (PT. 401)807 AT 840.
I am therefore satisfied that the acts of forcefully expelling the Respondents from their homes and community; the threats and harassment of the Respondents constitute a breach of the Respondents’ fundamental human rights as enshrined by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
I resolve issue 2 againstthe Appellants.
On the whole, both issues are resolved against the Appellants. The appeal lacks merit and accordingly fails. The judgment of the Delta state High Court, Otu-Jeremi division coram HON. JUSTICE J. E IKEDE delivered on 28th February, 2018 is hereby affirmed in its entirety.
The cost of N300,000 is awarded against the Appellants.
MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI–YUSUFF, J.C.A.: I have read the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, Abimbola OsarugueObaseki-Adejumo, JCA. I agree with his reasoning and the conclusion to dismiss the appeal. The attack on the Respondents and their homes which culminated in forceful expulsion from their homes, farms and community violates Section 41 of the Constitution which provides that “every citizen of Nigeria is entitled to move freely throughout Nigeria and to reside in any part thereof, and no citizen of Nigeria shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry thereto or exit therefrom.” The Appellants’ purported order that the Respondents should quit their jobs which they secured on their own for other members of the community breached and violated the Respondents’ rights guaranteed underSections 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 and they deserve to be protected. The traditional practice of expulsion of citizen from their residence or community as a punishment for crime or disagreement with the community has no place under the Constitution. See GEORGE & ORS V. ANUCHA (2016) LPELR-40509(CA) AT 43-45 (F-D). APPH & ORS V. OTURIE (2019) LPELR-46301(CA) AT 14-15 (D). The respondents in the instant case did not even commit any crime. I too dismiss the appeal.
JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A.: I read in advance, a copy of the lead judgment of my learned brother, OBASEKI-ADEJUMO. JCA. which has been delivered.
I agree with the reasoning and conclusion therein that the appeal lacks merit. I adopt the same in dismissing the appeal.
Appearances:
J.A. David, For Appellant(s)
Oghenefega T. Ipheghe, For Respondent(s)
