Can Multiple Applicants Jointly File a Single Action to Enforce Fundamental Rights?

CASE TITLE: TOTAL EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION (NIG) LTD v. OKWU & ORS (2024) LPELR-62623(SC)

JUDGMENT DATE: 14TH JUNE, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

LEAD JUDGMENT: HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, delivered on the 22nd of October, 2014 in Appeal No CA/PH/525/2012.

By a Motion on Notice brought pursuant to Order 2 Rules 2 & 3 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009; and Sections 46(2), 34(2) & 35(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the 1st – 6th Respondents as Applicants sought for the following reliefs against the 7th – 10th Respondents and Appellant as Respondents:

1. “A Declaration that the unjustified brutality meted out on the Applicants by officers of the 5th Respondent led by the 3rd Respondent at the firm instructions of the 1st Respondent is a violation of the Applicants’ right to personal liberty and freedom from inhuman/degrading treatment.

2. An Order directing officers of the 5th Respondent led by the 3rd Respondent to immediately release the 2nd Applicant who was shot in the abdomen and right hand and subsequently abducted by the aforementioned officers of the 5th Respondent led by the 3rd Respondent at the instructions of the 1st Respondent.

3. An Order directing the Respondents jointly and severally to immediately release the 1st Applicant’s milk color Toyota Hiace 18 Seater Bus unjustifiably held over at the premises of the 4th Respondent which contains fishing nets, 2 ATM cards, cash sum of N25,000.00 (Twenty Five Thousand Naira only), 9 (nine) G.S.M. phones, a gold necklace.

4. An Order directing the Respondents to jointly and severally pay to the Applicants the sum of N250,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Million Naira) only as specific, general, and punitive damages in compensating the Applicants for willfully and maliciously breaching their constitutionally protected fundamental rights, thereby unjustifiably subjecting them to excruciating pains, severe hardship, and stern medical trauma.”

The application was supported by a 21-paragraph affidavit with documents annexed thereto. While the 7th and 8th Respondents (as 1st and 2nd Respondents) filed a counter affidavit of 16- paragraphs, the Appellant as the 4th Respondent filed a counter affidavit of 6-paragraphs contesting the depositions in the affidavit in support of the application. The counter affidavit was, essentially renouncing liability. Further affidavits were also filed by the 1st – 6th Respondents in response to the said counter affidavits.

No appearances or processes were filed on behalf of the 9th and 10th Respondents (sued as 3rd and 5th Respondents). In a well-considered judgment delivered after hearing the application on its merit on the 8th day of November 2012, the trial Court held that the Respondents have been proved to have grossly violated the fundamental rights of the Applicants as protected in Chapter IV of the CFRN 1999 as amended. The Court awarded the sum of NGN230,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Thirty Million Naira) as damages. In addition, the trial Court ordered that the Respondents should release the 2nd Applicant whether dead or alive within two weeks from the date of this judgment.

Nettled by the judgment of the trial Court, Total Exploration and Production (Nig.) Limited, the Appellant herein, appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was heard and dismissed on the 22nd day of October 2014. The Appellant still aggrieved, further appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court considered the following issues:

1.”Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong when it affirmed the decision of the trial Court as the first to sixth Respondents’ action was incompetent ab initio as a result of a lack of jurisdiction?”

2. “Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were wrong when they affirmed the decision of the trial Court which held the Appellant liable when the first to the sixth Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proof under the Evidence Act”

3. “Whether the learned Justices were wrong when they affirmed the award of damages in the sum of N230 Million”

4. “Whether the learned Justices were wrong when they held that the Appellant did not deny that the eighth to tenth Respondents were its agents?”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

• ACTION- PARTY(IES) TO AN ACTION: Whether a plaintiff is required to sue only parties against whom he has a cause of action
• ACTION- CLAIM(S)/RELIEF(S): Whether reliefs claimed constitute part of the facts in the pleadings
• ACTION- REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION: Meaning of reasonable cause of action; how same is determined
• APPEAL- UNAPPEALED FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Effect of failure to appeal against the finding(s) of a Court
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH CONCURRENT FINDING(S) OF FACT(S): Attitude of the Supreme Court to interference with concurrent findings of fact(s) by lower Courts; meaning of perverse decision/judgment
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES: Circumstances in which an appellate court will interfere with award of damages made by a trial Court
• APPEAL- BRIEF OF ARGUMENT: Attitude of Court to a bad/faulty/inelegant brief of argument
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Position of the law on whether multiple applicants can jointly commence one action for the enforcement of their fundamental rights
• EVIDENCE- AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE: Effect of uncontroverted facts in an affidavit
• INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE- RULES OF INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION: Rules governing the interpretation of Constitutional provisions
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES: Whether claims based on tort can be enforced under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- CONSISTENCY IN PRESENTATION OF A CASE: Whether a party can maintain on appeal, a case different from that which was presented at the lower Court
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Attitude of Court where an objection that is incapable of terminating an appeal is filed by way of a preliminary objection, and not motion on notice as appropriate
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: Whether a respondent can file an affidavit and written address in support of a notice of preliminary objection outside the respondent brief of argument at the Supreme Court
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Attitude of Supreme Court to disregard of its processes and procedure
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- IRREGULAR PROCEDURE/PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY: Whether an issue of procedural irregularity can be raised for the first time on appeal
• TORT- VICARIOUS LIABILITY: Circumstance(s) where a master/principal would be vicariously liable for the acts of his employee/agent

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol