CASE TITLE: CCECC NIG. LTD & ORS v. BELLO & ORS (2024) LPELR-63069(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 4TH DECEMBER, 2024
PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: BINTA FATIMA ZUBAIRU, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
INTRODUCTION:
This appeal borders on the enforcement of fundamental rights.
FACTS:
This appeal is against the judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Holden at Abeokuta, Ogun State, delivered by Honorable Justice Ibrahim Watila on the 12th day of December, 2018, in Suit No. FHC/AB/89/2018.
The 1st Respondent instituted a suit against the 1st–4th Appellants. The reliefs sought were:
a. A declaration that the Applicant is entitled to dignity of his person as guaranteed under Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [as amended]
b. A declaration that the Applicant is entitled to his personal liberty as guaranteed under Section 35 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [as amended] has been infringed and violated.
c. A declaration that the Applicant right to dignity of human person and right to his personal liberty as guaranteed under Section 34 (1) and Section 35 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) has been infringed upon and violated by the respondents.
d. A N10,000,000.00 [Ten Million Naira] exemplary and aggravated damages against the Respondents jointly and severally being damages for the illegal detention and torture of the Applicant.
e. An order of Court mandating the Respondents to tender an unreserved apology to the Applicant via a national newspaper publication in Nigeria.
f. An order restraining the respondents their privies and agents from further unlawfully detaining the Applicant.
Upon being served with the originating process and other processes by the Applicant/1st Respondent, the 3rd to 6th Respondents reacted by filing a counter affidavit and written address dated and filed 17th day of October, 2018.
The 3rd – 4th Respondents did not appear, and neither did they file any defense. The trial Court thereafter entered judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent. Dissatisfied, the appellants instituted this appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
The Court considered the following issues:
1. Whether or not this appeal, as presently instituted by the Appellant is competent, thereby invoking jurisdiction on this honorable Court to entertain the same.
2. Whether the trial Court findings and decision dated 12 December 2018 are correct and legally justifiable coupled with the pieces of evidence adduced at the trial as presented by the parties to the suit.
3. Whether or not the learned trial judge erred in law and exhibited bias when he denied the 1st–4th Appellants fair hearing, that is, allowing both parties equal opportunity to present their respective cases.
4. Whether or not the learned trial judge did misdirect himself in law and in fact when he held that the 1st respondents and the 2nd-3rd Respondents were jointly liable since 1st – 4th Appellants only reported the matter at the police station
DECISION/HELD:
In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIOS:
- APPEAL- NOTICE(S) OF APPEAL: Whether mere wrong heading of a Notice of Appeal without more can by itself render an otherwise valid Notice of Appeal invalid
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): Statutory provision(s) as regards the rights to dignity of human person and personal liberty
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT(S): When arrest of worker(s) on grounds of trade union activities/demonstration will be held to be a breach of fundamental right
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: Whether a person unlawfully arrested/detained is entitled to compensation and apology
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: Instance(s) where a person will be liable for the arrest and detention of another person
- COURT- DUTY OF COURT: Duty of court in the administration of justice
- COURT- BIAS OF COURT: Principles of law on allegation of bias
- EVIDENCE- BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: Burden of proof in an action for enforcement of fundamental human rights
- EVIDENCE- DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Duty of a party relying on documents in support of his case
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
