Case Title: MURTALA v. DG, SSS & ORS (2023) LPELR-59323(CA)
On Monday, January 10, 2023
Onyekachi Aja Otisi
Muhammad Ibrahim Sirajo
Adebukunola Adeoti Ibironke Banjoko
MR. IMONIKHE MURTALAAPPELANT(S)
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL, STATE SECURITY SERVICE
2. DIRECTOR, STATE SECURITY SERVICE, LAGOS STATE
3. COMPTROLLER GENERAL, NIGERIA CUSTOMS SERVICE
4. AREA COMPTROLLER, NIGERIA CUSTOMS SERVICE FEDERAL OPERATIONS UNIT, IKEJA, LAGOS STATE
5. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FEDERATION
This appeal borders on the enforcement of fundamental rights to own movable property.
This is an appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court, Lagos.
The Appellant is a transporter and owner of a Mack Truck with Registration number BDG 265 XG with his business address at No. 1 Creek Road, Apapa, Lagos. On 21/01/2017, the Appellant’s aforesaid Truck conveyed a 40 feet container batched inside the Apapa port premises to the Trade Fair Complex, Alaba, Ojo, Lagos. The agent to the container owner was one Onyema. The truck was intercepted along the Apapa-Oshodi Expressway, and the truck, the driver and the container were arrested by men of the 3rd and 4th Respondents, on suspicion of carrying prohibited goods.
Upon examination of the container at the warehouse of the 3rd and 4th Respondents, it was found to be loaded with, among other things, 661 pieces of new Automatic Pump Action Rifles concealed with other items. Later, the 3rd and 4th Respondents handed over the truck and the container to the 1st and 2nd Respondents, in view of the security implication of the contents of the container.
The Appellants’ efforts to retrieve his seized Mack Truck, as he was not charged with any criminal offence after the conclusion of an investigation by both the Nigerian Customs Service and the State Security Service, met a brick wall. He therefore resorted to the Court to enforce his fundamental right through a Fundamental Right proceeding which he initiated against the Respondents at the Federal High Court, Lagos where he sought the following reliefs:
1. A declaration that the continuing seizure of the Applicant’s Mack Truck with Registration No. BDG 265 XG by the 1st to the 4th Respondents without any disclosed criminal culpability, indictment or/and Court order in respect of same, is wrongful, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void.
2. An order of Court releasing forthwith the said Mack Truck with Registration No. BDG 265 XG to the Applicant.
Parties joined issues by filing counter-affidavits, further affidavits as well as preliminary objections. In a considered judgment delivered on 16/03/2018, the Federal High Court, Coram: A.O. Faji, J., held under the preliminary objection that the 3rd and 4th Respondents are not juristic persons.
On the merits of the application, the Federal High Court dismissed the Appellant’s action, holding that the seizure of the truck was lawful.
Peeved by the decision of the Federal High Court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal determined the appeal by adopting the issues formulated by the appellant which are:
1. Whether the Court below was right in holding Exhibit ‘C’ i.e the information contained any evidence of the Applicant/Appellant’s involvement in a crime and for which sake the Court below justified the continued seizure of the Applicant/Applicant’s truck by the Respondents?
2. Whether the mere suspicion of the Applicant/Appellant’s truck in the carriage of items suspected to be contraband goods was sufficient for its permanent seizure by the Respondents without any obligation on the Respondents to subsequently detain the truck, only in accordance with the law?
3. Whether the Court below was right in holding that the 3rd and 4th respondents were not juristic persons in the light of the enabling law and provision made under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009?
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
LawPavilion's attention has been drawn to a publication titled "Supreme Court Gives Landmark decisions on…
Introduction Acronyms and the legal profession are inseparable. Among the many facets of legal language,…
Introduction The legal industry is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by technological advancements. This shift…
CASE TITLE: OGIEFO v. HRH JAFARU & ORS (2024) LPELR-62942(SC)JUDGMENT DATE: 19TH JULY, 2024PRACTICE AREA:…
CASE TITLE: FBN PLC & ANOR v. BEN-SEGBA TECHNICAL SERVICES LTD & ANOR (2024) LPELR-62998(SC)JUDGMENT…
CASE TITLE: EFCC v. GOVT OF ZAMFARA STATE & ORS (2024) LPELR-62933(CA)JUDGMENT DATE: 20TH SEPTEMBER,…