INTRODUCTION
This appeal borders on the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
CASE TITLE: MINISTER OF DEFENCE v. YAGANAMI & ANOR (2022) LPELR-57700(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 2ND JUNE, 2022
PRACTICE AREA: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
LEAD JUDGMENT: EBIOWEI TOBI, J.C.A.
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:
FACTS
This is an appeal against the ruling and judgment of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Maiduguri Judicial Division, delivered by Hon. Justice M. T. Salihu on 10/07/2014.
The 1st Respondent, Applicant in the lower Court alleged he was unlawfully arrested and kept in the custody of the Appellant without bail hence the suit for the enforcement of his fundamental right was instituted. The 1st Respondent filed the originating motion seeking for a declaration (among other reliefs sought) that his continued arrest and detention without just cause was illegal and unconstitutional and consequently sought an order of his production before the trial Court.
The Appellant here filed a notice of preliminary objection to the action challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the matter specifically on the provision of Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA). The Court in a considered ruling dismissed the preliminary objection. The Appellant in this appeal lost the preliminary objection and the substantive suit.
The Appellant dissatisfied and unhappy with both the ruling and judgment of the lower Court filed this appeal to the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The appeal was determined on the following issues:
1. Whether the Respondent’s action is competent thus vesting the trial Court with jurisdiction to entertain same having regard to the materials placed before the Court.
2. Whether the Responded has discharged the burden of proof placed upon him as required by the law to entitle him to the reliefs sought
3. Whether the trial Court has not misconceived the position of law relating to the burden of proof under the Nigerian law.
ALSO READ: Proper Court to File Pre-Election Matter; Effect of Failure to File Same within Time
DECISION/HELD
The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the Federal High Court was aside.
RATIOS:
- EVIDENCE – BURDEN OF PROOF/ONUS OF PROOF: On whom lies the burden to prove that the arrest and detention of a person is lawful
- EVIDENCE – AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE: Effect of an affidavit that does not disclose the source of information
- LIMITATION LAW – LIMITATION PERIOD: Limitation period for bringing an action against a public officer
- PUBLIC OFFICER – PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Whether Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act applies to suits instituted under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules
- PUBLIC OFFICER – PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Application of the Public Officers Protection Act
- PUBLIC OFFICER – PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT/LAW: Extent of the application of the Public Officers Protection Act and purpose of the Act/Law
