WHETHER A PERSON CAN GET DAMAGES/COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF ANY RIGHT OTHER THAN RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY AND COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY

CASE TITLE: OKOROCHA v. IGP & ORS (2021) LPELR-55042(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 8TH JULY, 2021

PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

LEAD JUDGMENT: BOLOUKUROMO MOSES UGO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION

This appeal borders on Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

FACTS

This appeal is from the judgment of the Federal High Court, Jos Division dismissing the fundamental rights enforcement application of appellant against the Respondents. Appellant was at all times material to the commencement of that application the Executive Governor of Imo State. By virtue of that position, he enjoyed constitutional immunity against criminal or civil prosecution.

​His case as deposed to by one Cyril Oparabezie (appellant’s personal driver) in the affidavit supporting his application is that, on the 3rd of May 2017, Mr. Oparabezie, was standing outside appellant’s Rocha’s Villa in Jos, Plateau State when he noticed vehicles with sirens moving towards it. Mr. Oparabezie said he initially thought it was the appellant who was at that time residing and performing his functions in Imo State as its Executive Governor that was returning for a surprise visit. He, Oparabezie, moved to the gate of the house, but on arrival at the gate, he was surrounded and accosted by gun-wielding men whom he said were 4th to 7th Respondents. These gun-wielding 4th to 7th Respondents told him to cooperate with them and explained to him that they were officials of the third respondent (EFCC) on assignment to search appellant’s Rocha’s Villa. They then showed him a paper, which they claimed was a search warrant, but did not allow him to read it or retain a copy for the appellant. While he was still trying to understand what they wanted, they broke and entered into the main house of the Villa, moved from room to room and ransacked it thoroughly after which they proceeded to appellant’s private Chapel in the same premises, broke and opened its door and window, entered it and continued the same search.

The entire exercise, he said, was also recorded by cameramen who accompanied the 4th to 7th Respondent. Upon conclusion of the search and not finding any incriminating item, Mr. Oparabezie added, 4th to 7th Respondents directed him to sign the search warrant and he did. He swore ‘the Respondent’ (he did not reveal which of the respondents he meant by that singular noun) then boasted that ‘they’ would get appellant and teach him a good lesson so they should prepare for them as they would show him ‘pepper in this Nigeria.’ Mr. Oparaebezie said in his affidavit that the appellant informed him that the actions of the respondents violated his (appellant’s) right to privacy, the dignity of his person and the safety of his (appellant’s) household and put great fear in him (appellant) and members of his family. On the basis of that, the appellant approached the Court to enforce his fundamental rights to Personal and residential privacy, Dignity of his person, and protection from inhuman and degrading treatment and Protection from forcible possession and detainer of moveable and immoveable property. He also sought an injunction and ₦1,000,000,000.00 (One Billion Naira only) as exemplary damages for the injury, loss, trauma, misuse and abuse of public office and powers and pain caused him as a result of the respondent’s violation of his rights.

Delivering judgment on the application on 02/02/2019, the lower Court (Kurya, J.) placed reliance on the Search Warrant (Exhibit EFCC3) upon which the search was conducted and dismissed the application.

Irked by that ruling, the appellant lodged this appeal to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The appeal was determined on the following issues:

1. Whether or not a lawful or valid search warrant can be issued and executed against him, appellant, when he is holding office as Executive Governor of Imo State.

2. Whether the lower Court was right in holding that his fundamental rights were not violated given the existence of a valid search warrant.

3. Whether the lower Court afforded him a fair hearing when it resolved the conflict in the affidavits on the issuance of the search warrant and its execution without calling oral evidence.

4. Whether the lower Court was right in dismissing his application for enforcement of his fundamental rights.

DECISION/HELD

The appeal was unanimously dismissed.

RATIOS:

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF PERSON: Whether it is the dignity of the very person concerned or applicant complaining and not that of any other person that is protected under the Right to Dignity of Person
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: Whether a person can get damages/compensation for breach of any right other than Rights to Personal Liberty and Compulsory Acquisition of Property
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Whether immunity right guaranteed under Section 308 of the Constitution can be enforced under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules

PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY: Whether the presumption of regularity inures in favour of a search warrant.