CORAM

---

Ita George Mbaba Justice of the Court of Appeal

Patricia Ajuma Mahmoud Justice of the Court of Appeal

Peter Oyinkenimiemi Affen Justice of the Court of Appeal

---

PARTIES

---

1. PETER IBRAHIM PERO

2. HAMZA ADAMU (ADAM)

3. ISA IBRAHIM (A.K.A. IBRAHIM YOLA)

4. SANDA DANJUMA

5. UGWUMBA UCHE (ANULE) 6. MONDAY AMDO

6. KENAN IBRAHIM ASFA

8. YOHANMA MOSES

9. FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTRE, JALINGO

APPELLANTS 

---

1. NWAGBOSO BREEZE IMRAHN

2. D.P.O., GRA POLICE DIVISION, JALINGO 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TARABA STATE

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, PERSONAL LIBERTY, HUMAN DIGNITY, EVIDENCE, DAMAGES, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The appellants, Peter Ibrahim Pero and others, appealed the decision of the Federal High Court in Jalingo, which ruled in favor of the 1st respondent, Nwagboso Breeze Imrahn. The case revolved around the arrest and detention of the 1st respondent for five days without justifiable cause, allegedly instigated by the appellants. The 1st respondent claimed that his fundamental rights were violated under Sections 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42 of the Constitution of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The trial court held that the 1st respondent’s rights had indeed been violated and awarded him N15,000,000 as compensation for damages. The appellants appealed, arguing that the arrest was lawful and justified based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. They further contended that the damages awarded were excessive and without basis.

 

---

HELD

---

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. It held that the arrest and detention of the 1st respondent were unlawful and in violation of his fundamental rights. The N15,000,000 compensation was upheld, and costs of N200,000 were awarded against the appellants.

 

---

ISSUES

---

1. Whether the trial court was right to hold that the 1st respondent was unlawfully arrested and detained, violating his fundamental rights?.

2. Whether the 1st respondent proved his case sufficiently to warrant the judgment?.

3. Whether the N15,000,000 awarded as compensation was excessive and without basis?.

 

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

UNLAWFUL ARREST AND DETENTION – WHETHER THE APPELLANT’S ARREST AND DETENTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIOLATED HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

---

The Court held that the 1st respondent’s arrest and detention for five days without charge or justifiable cause constituted a violation of his fundamental rights to personal liberty, human dignity, and freedom of movement, as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, and 41 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. The appellants had no reasonable basis for involving the police, and their actions amounted to bad faith.

– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

 

---

BURDEN OF PROOF – WHETHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT PROVED HIS CASE SUFFICIENTLY TO WARRANT THE JUDGMENT

---

The burden of proof rests on the party alleging the violation of fundamental rights. The 1st respondent had successfully demonstrated, through credible evidence, that his arrest was instigated by the appellants without any reasonable suspicion or lawful cause. The appellants failed to provide any evidence justifying their actions, thereby shifting the burden of proof to them, which they could not discharge.

– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

 

---

COMPENSATION FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS – WHETHER THE AWARD OF N15,000,000 AS DAMAGES WAS EXCESSIVE

---

The court affirmed that the trial court acted within its discretion in awarding N15,000,000 as compensation. Given the seriousness of the violation of the 1st respondent’s rights, including unlawful detention and the trauma experienced, the award was reasonable and in line with established legal principles regarding compensation for breaches of fundamental rights.

– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

 

---

DUTY OF COURT TO PROTECT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – WHETHER COURTS HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO COMPENSATE FOR RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

---

The court reiterated that it is the duty of courts to guard the fundamental rights of citizens and compensate individuals whose rights have been violated. The Supreme Court has consistently held that breaches of constitutional rights must be remedied, not only through compensation but also through measures preventing further violations.

– Per ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA

 

---

CASES CITED

---

Not Available

 

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Not Available
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT