What Qualifies an Action as Such Which Is Enforceable in an Application Brought Under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules?

CASE TITLE:  BAKO v. YARO & ANOR (2025) LPELR-81706(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 24TH JULY, 2025

PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Breach of Fundamental Human Rights.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Apo Division, Abuja, delivered by Hon. Justice M. Babashani.

The Appellant, as Applicant, brought an application by way of Originating Motion before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory against the Respondents claiming a declaration that the incessant arrests and detention of the Applicant amount to gross violation of the Applicant’s fundamental right to dignity of human person, freedom of movement, right to life and liberty. The Respondent also prayed, among other reliefs, for an order of injunction restraining the Respondents from arresting or ordering the arrest or summoning of the Applicant either personally or through the use of the Nigeria Police, etc.

In opposition to the application, the Respondents filed a 6-paragraph counter affidavit and a written address, as well as a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit. After hearing the objection along with the substantive application, the trial Court delivered its judgment in which it upheld the preliminary objection of the Respondents, declined jurisdiction and also dismissed the suit because the principal/main claim of the Appellant/Applicant borders on land and chieftaincy matters.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court adopted the issue formulated by the Appellant, viz:

“1. Whether the learned trial Judge rightly declined jurisdiction to entertain the substantive application on the grounds that Appellant’s principal/main claims bordered on land and chieftaincy disputes, when there were no facts before the Court to support the decision.

2. Whether the trial Judge was right to have overlooked the documentary evidence establishing wanton breach to the Appellant’s Fundamental Right in dismissing the action.”

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Whether the enforcement of fundamental right must be the main claim in an application brought under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Rules
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Proper mode of commencing an action for the enforcement of a fundamental right
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Whether application(s) for the enforcement of fundamental rights are determined on affidavit evidence
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: Whether mere invitation to report to law enforcement agencies would qualify as a breach of fundamental rights
• COURT- POWER OF COURT: Conditions necessary for the exercise of the power of the Court of Appeal as provided under Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act
• POLICE- POLICE INVESTIGATION: Whether a complainant/informant can be held responsible for the result of a police investigation

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