Whether Multiple Parties Could File a Joint Application Under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules

CASE TITLE: NUWAWAN & ORS v. IGP ABUJA & ORS (2023) LPELR-61580(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 7TH DECEMBER, 2023

JUSTICES: STEPHEN JONAH ADAH, JCA
AMINA AUDI WAMBAI, JCA
ABIMBOLA OSARUGUE OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, JCA

DIVISION: ASABA

PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

FACTS:
This appeal is against the decision of the Federal High Court, Warri Judicial Division.

At the Federal High Court, Warri Judicial Division, the appellants as applicants by an originating motion, commenced an action on 7/2/2018 for the enforcement of their fundamental rights pursuant to Sections 34, 35, 41, and 46(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and Order II Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and IV Rule 4(a), (b), (c)(i) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. They sought the following relief, among others:

• A DECLARATION that the arrest and detention of the 1st applicant on 15/1/2018 to 19/1/2018 by the 6th-8th Respondents agents of the 1st 2nd respondents at the instigation of the 9th–11th respondents without the 1st Applicant committing any offence known to law and without proper trial is unconstitutional, illegal, oppressive and amounts to a gross infringement of the 1st Applicant’s Fundamental Rights to fair hearing, personal liberty, dignity of his person and freedom of movement, as enshrined in Sections 34, 35 & 41 of the 1999 Constitution, (as amended in 2011).
• A DECLARATION that the harassment, molestation, brutal torture, and assault of the 1st applicant by the 6th–8th Respondents for no offense known to Law and without having the requisite authority to do so is a blatant violation of the 1st Applicant’s Fundamental Rights as guaranteed under Section 34 of the 1999 Constitutions (as amended).
• A DECLARATION that the threats by the Respondents to further arrest and detain the 1st applicant and the threat to harass, intimidate, humiliate, arrest, and detain 2nd – 16th Applicants without the 2nd -16th Applicants committing an offence known to law and without having the requisite authority to do so is a violation of the 2nd-16th applicants’ fundamental Rights as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended 2011).
  

In opposition to the application, the 1st to 8th Respondents filed a 48-paragraphed counter affidavit while the 9th to 11th Respondents responded by filing a 24-paragraph counter affidavit and a Notice of Preliminary objection. The Appellants filed a further affidavit to the 9th to 11th Respondents’ counter affidavit and the preliminary objection. The trial Court heard the application together with the preliminary objection but considered the preliminary objection first. In its judgment, the Court upheld the objection and struck out the motion for being incompetent.
Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed an appeal.

ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court determined the appeal on the sole issue thus:

Whether the learned trial Court was right when it held that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the Appellants’ joint Application for Enforcement of their Fundamental Rights.

COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
The Appellants’ counsel argued that the trial Judge had erred in declaring a lack of jurisdiction to hear the case, contending that Fundamental Human Rights, as outlined in Chapter IV of the Nigerian constitution, are paramount and enforceable through specific procedures. It was asserted that multiple parties could bring a single application under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, citing several cases.

Conversely, counsel for the 1st – 8th Respondents argued against joint application, emphasizing that individual applications are the appropriate recourse for addressing grievances. It was maintained that the procedural rules do not permit joint enforcement of rights by multiple applicants and advocated for dismissal of the appeal.

DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was allowed and suit was remitted to the trial Court for trial on merit before a different Judge.

RATIO:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Whether a joint application can be filed by more than one person to enforce a right under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules

“In MR. ABIMBOLA JAIYESIMI & ANOR v. OMELI HUMPHERY DARLINGTON (2022) LPELR-57344 (SC) The Court held that “enforcement of fundamental right is in a special breed amongst the various means of approaching the Courts for justice in that the procedure is peculiarly structured to achieve speed and uphold the constitutionally guaranteed freedom, of the aggrieved party. It is governed by specific and special rules which have bypassed the normal rules of procedure in order to give effect to the overriding need for speedy justice.”

Also, joint applicants can bring an application for the enforcement of their fundamental rights as long as they have common grievances and common interests, and it is in the same factual situation that they predicate the evisceration of their fundamental rights.

See, INCORPORATED TRUSTEES OF DIGITAL RIGHTS LAWYERS INITIATIVE & ORS (2021) LPELR-55623 (CA).” Per OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A.

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