Whether A Complainant/Informant can be Held Responsible for the Result of a Police Investigation

CASE TITLE: IGP & ORS v. ALFA & ANOR (2023) LPELR-61193(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: UCHECHUKWU ONYEMENAM, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court sitting in Kano, delivered on January 20, 2014, by Fatun O. Riman J. in Suit No. FHC/KN/CS/84/2013.

The Respondents as Applicants at the trial Court commenced the action against the Appellants who were the Respondents, vide motion on notice dated November 18, 2013; filed the same day and sought several reliefs bordering on enforcement of fundamental rights.

The facts of the case, according to the Appellants is that on October 17, 2013, the 3rd Respondent reported a case of armed robbery at Sheka Police Division, Kano State, and alleged that one Hassan Alfa (deceased) and the 1st Respondent who were armed with knives and sticks, ambushed, attacked, and robbed her of her Samsung Galaxy handset valued at N85,000.00 (Eighty-Five Thousand Naira) and one HTC phone valued at N35,000.00 (Thirty-Five Thousand Naira). Consequent upon the complaint, the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent’s son (the deceased) were arrested on the same day and taken to Sheka Police Division. While the investigation was in progress, the deceased, on one occasion, suddenly fell down, was rushed to the police clinic for medical attention, and was subsequently released on administrative bail as it was discovered that he was suffering from epilepsy.

According to the 1st and 2nd Respondents on the other hand, the 1st and 2nd Respondents and their family had a misunderstanding with the 3rd Respondent who happens to be their sister-in-law and who visited them for the salah celebration. The misunderstanding resulted in a fight, but it was immediately stopped. Consequent upon the fight, the 3rd Respondent surprisingly made a report to the police, and the 1st Respondent and the deceased were arrested and detained at Sheka Police Division till the next day and were then transferred to the Kano State Police Headquarters, Bompai. The 1st and 2nd Respondents alleged that at the police headquarters, they were taken to different offices where they were tortured and beaten with big sticks that were targeted on their heads while on handcuffs and were referred to as armed robbers. The 1st and 2nd Respondents further alleged that the beatings on their heads led to them sustaining severe and very serious injuries all over their bodies, most especially on their heads, and as a result, the deceased, who could no longer withstand the torture, started convulsing with blood gushing out from both his mouth and ears. He was taken to the police clinic for treatment and was subsequently granted administrative bail after the 2nd Respondent had bled for over 9 hours. The deceased was thereafter rushed to the Almu Memorial Hospital, where he received treatment for the torture until his death on October October, 2013.

​The trial Court, at the end of the hearing, entered judgment in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents and granted some of the reliefs. The Court awarded the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as damages against the Appellants in favour of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. Displeased with the judgment, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Respondents also cross-appealed.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:

The Court determined the appeal based on the following issues:

1. Whether the failure of the 1st and 2nd Respondents’ originating process commencing Suit No. FHC/KN/CS/84/2013 to comply with the provisions of Sections 97 of the Sheriff and Civil Process Act Cap. S6 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004; before service of the originating process was effected on the 1st Appellant outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below denied the Court below the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit ab initio.

2. Whether or not the failure of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to first seek and obtain leave of the Court below before the originating process was served on the 1st Appellant whose office is at Louis Edet House, Abuja, outside territorial jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, Kano division denied the Court below the jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit.

3. Whether the Court below has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject matter of the suit.

4. Whether or not the Court below was right in awarding the lump sum of N10,000,000.00 (ten million naira only) on reliefs 6, 7 and 8 as general damages against the Appellants.

5. Whether or not the judgment of the lower Court is against the weight of evidence adduced.

6. Whether or not the learned trial Judge erred in law when he found the Appellants guilty of murdering the 2nd Respondent’s son.

The Court determined the cross-appeal based on the following issues:

1. Whether or not the arrest and detention amount to a false alarm.

2. Whether or not the trial Court was right to have awarded Ten Million Naira damages as against the Seven hundred and Twenty Million Naira damages sought by the Cross Appellants, then Respondents in the circumstance of the case.”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the Court dismissed the main appeal. The cross-appeal was allowed.

RATIOS:

• COURT – JURISDICTION – Principles of law with respect to jurisdiction; types of jurisdiction
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ISSUANCE/SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS(ES) – Requirements of law regarding endorsement of originating process for service outside the jurisdiction of the issuing Court; effect of non-compliance
• PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ISSUANCE/SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS(ES) – Whether the provision of Section 97 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act applies to the Federal High Court
• JURISDICTION – JURISDICTION OF THE STATE/FEDERAL HIGH COURT – Whether the Federal and State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain matters on enforcement of fundamental rights
• APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES – Principles guiding award of general damages; instance(s) when an appellate Court will not interfere
• DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – Guiding principles for the award of general damages
• EVIDENCE – PUBLIC DOCUMENT – Condition precedent to admissibility of public document
• EVIDENCE – PUBLIC DOCUMENT – Meaning of a public document
• EVIDENCE – PUBLIC DOCUMENT – Whether the original copy of public documents must be certified to make them admissible in Court
• EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE – Whether a party who fails to object to the admissibility of documentary evidence at the trial Court can do so on appeal
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF MURDER – Nature of the offence of murder
• CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – OFFENCE OF MURDER – Ingredients of murder and standard of proof to ground a conviction for murder; whether murder can be determined in a civil trial
• POLICE – POLICE INVESTIGATION – Right of a citizen to report cases of commission of crime to the Police; whether a complainant/informant can be held responsible for the result of a Police investigation
• ACTION – CAPACITY TO SUE AND BE SUED – Capacity of a dead person to sue or be sued in an action
• APPEAL – INTERFERENCE WITH AWARD OF DAMAGES – Principles guiding award of general damages; instance(s) when an appellate Court will interfere
• POLICE – POWERS OF THE POLICE – Power of the Police and how it must be exercised

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