CASE TITLE: EKANEM & ANOR v. ESSIEN & ORS (2022) LPELR-56508(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 14TH JANUARY, 2022
PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: JAMES SHEHU ABIRIYI, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION
This appeal borders on enforcement of fundamental rights.
FACTS
This appeal is against the judgment delivered on the 29th March, 2017 in the High Court of Akwa Ibom State in the Itu Judicial Division sitting at Itu. In the High Court (the Court below), the 1st Respondent applied for the enforcement of his fundamental rights against the Appellants, Commissioner of Police, Akwa Ibom State and Inspector Ogar Etta.
The 1st Respondent sought for the following reliefs:
1) That his arrest at the instigation of the Appellants was an infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 35(1) (4) and (5), and 34(1) of the Constitution.
2) A declaration that the threat of further arrest if he did not pay the sum of N1,012,085 to the 1st Appellant is null and void.
3) A declaration that the recovery of debt is not part of the duties of the Nigeria Police.
4) An order of perpetual injunction restraining the Appellants and the two police officers from further harassing, arresting and detaining him.
5) N50 Million compensation.
The application was brought upon five grounds.
The case of the 1st Respondent as can be made out from the affidavit in support of the application was that he leased out his Petrol Filling Station to the 1st Appellant for a period. When he wanted to recover possession, the 1st Appellant asked for money he spent on structural improvements he carried out on the property. The 1st Appellant and he (1st Respondent) did not agree on the amount demanded by the 1st Appellant. The Appellants left promising to return. They returned with “a truckload” of policemen, handcuffed the 1st Respondent and took him to Ikot Akpan Abia where he was detained.
The case of the 1st Appellant was that the 1st Respondent breached their agreement for the lease of the property for another year. Both 1st Appellant and 1st Respondent had a meeting to sort out the issue of the lease. They agreed on the sum of N1,012,085. The 1st Respondent was to give the 1st Appellant a postdated cheque. The following day while the 1st Appellant was at the Filling Station, the 1st Respondent with four able bodied young men invaded the station, three of the able-bodied men each put his hand in his pocket and brought out a short gun. He was ordered never to return to the Filling Station. It was this attack that he reported to the police.
In their defence the 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed a counter affidavit. Their defence was that a case of unlawful possession of firearms/obtaining money by false pretence/threat to life and forceful seizure of property was reported to them by the 1st Appellant through a petition against the 1st Respondent. The statement of the 1st Respondent was recorded the same day. He applied for bail and was granted bail that night but produced the surety the following day 17th January, 2017. It was the 1st Respondent who volunteered to pay back for the repairs made by the 1st Appellant. That there was no need to torture him.
The Court below considered the affidavit evidence of the parties and addresses of their learned counsel and entered judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent against Appellants and the police.
Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The Court determined the appeal on the following issues for determination:
1. Whether the Court below was justified to have proceeded to entertain the Suit despite the appellants’ application, objection and persistence to transfer the matter to the appropriate and more convenient venue (Judicial Division)?
2. Whether the award of the sum of N1,500,000.00 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira), made by the Court below, in the footing of exemplary damages, as compensation to the 1st Respondent against the Appellants was justified in law?
3. Whether the judgment of the Court below is perverse, against the weight of evidence and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when the Court held that the 1st and 3rd Respondents had breached the 1st Respondent’s fundamental rights?
4. Whether the Court below was justified in awarding of the sum of N1,500,000.00 exemplary damages jointly and severally against the 2nd Appellant herein?
DECISION/HELD
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
RATIOS:
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Nature of fundamental rights enforcement proceedings
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: Circumstances that amount to breach of fundamental rights
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: Whether a person unlawfully arrested/detained is entitled to compensation and apology
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Whether a party whose right has been infringed upon in a State can seek redress at any judicial division of the High Court in that State
