Does Subsequent Court Arraignment Rectify Violations of Fundamental Rights?

CASE TITLE: PERO & ORS v. IMRAHN & ORS (2024) LPELR-62727(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 6TH AUGUST, 2024

PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This is appeal borders on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Jalingo.

At the trial Court, the 1st Respondent, as Applicant, had sought the following reliefs against the Respondents (now Appellants and 2nd and 3rd Respondents) for a declaration that the actions of the 1st to 11th Respondents that led to the arrest and detention of the Applicant from the Federal Medical Centre to Jalingo Police Division and to the GRA Police Division, Jalingo, Taraba State and his detention there in the police cell for 5 days, without any lawful justification, constitutes gross and abysmal aberration of his inalienable rights and flagrant disregard and willful violation of the inalienable rights of the Applicant; among other reliefs. At the end, the learned trial Judge granted the reliefs sought by Applicant.

Aggrieved, the Appellant appealed.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issues for determination formulated by the appellant viz:

1. Was the trial Court right to hold that 1st Respondent’s fundamental rights had been violated by the Appellants and 2nd and 3rd Respondents, to entitle him to the grant of the relief sought, and did the Appellants establish any basis to fault the discretion of the Court to award N15 Million to 1st Respondent as damages?

2. Whether the trial Court was right when it held that the fundamental rights of the 1st Respondent were breached and awarded a whooping and excessive sum of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) as compensation against the Appellants and 2nd and 3rd Respondents.

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- REPLY BRIEF: Purpose of a reply brief; whether a reply brief is meant to re-argue the case of the appellant
• APPEAL- ARGUMENT ON APPEAL: What an argument on appeal should be based on
• APPEAL- UNAPPEALED FINDING(S)/DECISION(S): Effect of failure to appeal against the finding(s) of a Court
• APPEAL- INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF COST: Whether award of costs is at the discretion of the trial Court; instance(s) where an appellate Court will interfere
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION: Whether the Constitution of the country is the supreme law
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Whether the subsequent arraignment of an Applicant in Court can cure the effect of violation of his fundamental rights
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: Whether a person whose fundamental rights has been infringed is entitled to damages
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: Whether there are consequences for employing the Police or any enforcement agency to violate the fundamental rights of a citizen
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE- ARREST: What a person alleging that he was unlawfully arrested and detained must show

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