Whether the Duty of the Police includes the Settlement of Civil Disputes or Debt Collection

CASE TITLE: IMAM & ANOR v. USMAN & ANOR (2023) LPELR-60203(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 3RD APRIL, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

LEAD JUDGMENT: ITA GEORGE MBABA, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

FACTS:

This appeal is against the decision of the Kano State High Court.

At the trial Court, it was revealed that the 1st Respondent had a civil disagreement over a piece of land, which 1st Respondent bought from the 2nd Applicant/appellant, through the 1st Applicant/appellant, as agent. A 3rd party, later emerged to claim ownership of the land, resulting in attempt by 3^rd party to use the Police against the Appellants, and this led to the arrest and detention of the 1^st Applicant for 4 days.

​The Applicants, filed their fundamental rights action against the Respondents. The Applicants had deposed that 1st Respondent was desirous to use the Police to harass and detain them over the land transaction despite the existence of a civil suit between the parties.

​The trial Court in its judgment held that 1st Respondent had a right to complain to the Police, when he felt he had been cheated, and that the 2nd Respondent (the police) had the power to investigate such criminal complaint. The trial Court, simply dismissed the Applicants’ claim, without considering whether the use of the Police by the 1st Respondent, in such circumstances, violated the Applicants’ (Appellants) fundamental rights. Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed.

ISSUES:

The Court determined the appeal on a sole issue as follows:

“Whether the trial Court was right to dismiss the claims of the Appellants for the simple reason that the 1st Respondent had the right to lodge a complaint with the Police (2nd Respondent) where he felt that he had been cheated, and the 2nd Respondent had the power to investigate a criminal complaint, without determining the fact that the complaint was founded on a purely civil matter”

DECISION/HELD:

In the final analysis, the appeal was allowed in part. It was held that the trial Court was wrong to dismiss the Appellants’ claim without determining the fact that the complaint was founded on a purely civil matter. Damages were awarded to the Appellants and a restraining order was made against the 2^nd Respondent.

RATIOS:

• APPEAL- FORMULATION OF ISSUE(S) FOR DETERMINATION: Whether a respondent who files neither a cross-appeal nor respondent notice can formulate issues for determination more than the issues formulated by the appellant
• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: Whether a person unlawfully arrested/detained is entitled to compensation and apology
• POLICE- DUTY OF POLICE: Whether the duty of the police includes the settlement of a civil dispute or debt collection; liability of a person who procures the police to carry out illegal duties
• POLICE- POLICE INVESTIGATION: Whether a complainant/informant can be held responsible for the result of a police investigation
• POLICE- DUTY OF POLICE: Principles guiding the Police in the discharge of their duties