CORAM

---

---

PARTIES

---

AMADU ALH. DANTANI APPELLANTS

---

ALH. BALA P. L RESPONDENTS

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants by a motion ex-parte sought for and were granted leave by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Abuja, to enforce their fundamental right against the Respondents and claimed a declaration that the arrest and detention of the Applicants on or about the 10th day of April 2006 is unlawful illegal and unconstitutional a declaration that the confinement, detention of the Applicants by the Respondents at F.C.I.D. cell, Area 10 Garki, Abuja from their time of arrest, a period of about 8 months without trial is unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, null and void, an order releasing the Applicants from unlawful detention forth with and N500,000.00 damages for unlawful detention. At the conclusion of hearing, the trial court in a reserved ruling, affirmed that the Applicants right to personal liberty as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution was violated but it did not award damages. Being dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division. The lower court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal hence, a further appeal to this court.

---

HELD

---

Appeal Allowed In Part

---

ISSUES

---

Whether the Justices of Court of Appeal was (sic were) right to base their reason for refusal to award the damages sought by the Appellants against the Respondents on an issue that was not considered by the trial court in its judgment nor raised by the parties to the appeal before them Whether the justices at the Court of Appeal was (Sic were) right to refuse to award the damages sought by the Appellants when they agreed with the findings of the trial court that the Appellants Constitutional rights were indeed breached by the Respondents”.

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – DUTY OF A COURT WHERE A NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IS FILED AND MOVED BEFORE IT

---

“For the law is settled that where a notice of preliminary objection is filed and moved before a court of law, that court is duty bound to consider the preliminary objection before venturing into the main or cross – appeal. For the aim of a preliminary objection is to terminate a case in limine, without dissipating unnecessary energy in considering unworthy or fruitless matter in the courts proceedings. See Yaro v. Arewa Construction Ltd (2007)17 NWLR (Pt. 1063)333, Agbareh v. Mimra (2008)2 NWLR (Pt. 1071)378, Onyekwuluje v. Animashaun (1996)3 NWLR (Pt.439)637, Onyemeh v. Egbu Chulum (1996)5 NWLR (Pt.448)255, Efet v. I.N.E.C. (2011)17 NWLR (Pt. 1247)423”.

---

NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION – DUTY OF A RESPONDENT WHO INTENDS TO RELY ON A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO THE HEARING OF AN APPEAL

---

“Order 2 Rule 9(1) of the Supreme Court Rules provides as follows:-
“A respondent intending to rely upon a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal shall give the appellant three clear days notice thereof before the hearing, setting out the grounds of objection, and shall file such notice together with ten copies thereof with the Registrar within the same time”, (underlining is mine)

---

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS – PURPOSE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

---

“This Court has had an opportunity to state the purpose of preliminary objections in S.P.D.C.N. Ltd v. Amadi (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1266) 157 at 183 paras D-F in the following words:-
“Order 2 Rule 9 of the Supreme Court rules provide for the filing of preliminary objections. Preliminary objections are J led against the hearing of an appeal and so once it succeeds, the appeal no longer exists. All too often we see preliminary objections filed against one or more grounds of appeal. Since there are other grounds that can sustain the appeal, a preliminary objection should not be filed. Instead, a notice of motion seeking to strike out the defective grounds of appeal should be filed”
A preliminary objection is the procedure to be adopted where a respondent objects to the hearing of an appeal. The purpose of preliminary objection is to terminate the appeal in limine.
Order 2 Rule 9(1) of the Supreme Court Rules therefore is a procedure adopted only against the hearing of an appeal and not for any other purpose. See Adelekan v. Ecu-Line Nv (2006)12 NWLR (Pt.993)33; Auto Import and Export v. Adebayo (2002)18 NWLR (Pt.799)554; Amadi v. NNPC (2000)10 NWLR (Pt.674)76, Adigun v. Ayinde (1993)8 NWLR (Pt.313)516”.

---

AWARD OF DAMAGES – BASIS FOR THE GRANT OR REFUSAL OF AN AWARD DAMAGES

---

“A grant or refusal to award damages is a decision that must be based on sound reasons. In Umunna v. Okwuraiwe (1978) 6-7 SC 1, this Court held inter alia as follows :-
“It is not enough for the court to simply award damages in unliquidated pecuniary damages claimed without giving any reason as to how it arrived at what opinion amounted to reasonable damages”. See Olurotimi v. Felicia Ige (1993)8 NWLR (Pt.311)25 at 266.

---

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES – WHETHER A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES MUST BE AWARDED WHERE A SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM SUCCEEDS

---

“It is not the law that where substantive claim succeeds, the subsidiary claim of damages must be awarded automatically. This is made very clear in Oke v. Ayedun (1986)2 NWLR (Pt.23) 548, cited in the judgment of the lower court. In that case, at page 565, Aniagolu JSC said:-
“It is a principle of pleadings, that which is not denied is deemed to have been admitted and if a plaintiff filed a statement of claim and the defendant failed or refused to file a statement of defense in answer thereto, he clearly, will be deemed to have admitted the statement of claim, leaving the trial court with the authority to peremptorily enter judgment for the plaintiff without hearing evidence. An exception to that would obviously be in respect of a claim for damages, for damages are always said to be in issue, requiring the plaintiff to prove them”. (Under lining is mine).

---

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES – DUTY OF PARTIES IN A CLAIM FOR SPECIAL AND GENERAL DAMAGES

---

“There are two types of damages. Where a party claims special damages, he must specially plead and strictly prove same. General damages are averred under specific heads of claim, presumed in law to be the direct and natural consequence of the act complained of and are awarded at large. General damages are always made as a claim at large. The quantum need not be pleaded and proved specifically. The award is quantified by what, in the opinion of a reasonable person, is considered adequate loss or inconvenience which flows naturally, as generally presumed by law from the act of the defendant”.

---

GENERAL DAMAGES – WHETHER GENERAL DAMAGES CAN BE SOUGHT FOR UNLAWFUL DETENTION

---

“Where general damages are sought on the basis of unlawful detention, they would represent payment for the tort of trespass to the Appellants’ bodies. See Rockonoh property Co. Ltd v. Nigeria Telecommunication Plc & Anor. (2001)14 NWLR (Pt.733)468. A claim for unlawful detention is to be taken as compensation for violation of the Appellants’ right to liberty”.

---

CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURT – ATTITUDE OF THE SUPREME COURT TO CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURT

---

The attitude of this court is that it does not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts by the High court and the court of appeal unless there exist special and exceptional circumstances that will allow such question of fact to be reopened. See Lokoyi & Anor v. Olojo (1983)14 NSCC 386, Mogo Chinwendu v. Mbamali (1980)3 SC Ibodo & Ors. v. Enarofia & Ors. (1980)5-7 SC 42 at 55, Ibrahim v. Shagari & Anor. (1983)14 NSCC 431, Aroyewron v. Adediran (2004)7SCNJ 240 at 246”.

---

AWARD OF DAMAGES – PRINCIPLES GUIDING THE AWARD OF DAMAGES

---

“The principles guiding the award of damages is that damages will flow from the wrong suffered to a complainant. Any grant of general damages is intended to assuage the natural loss and painful mental feelings suffered by the claimant and caused by the defendant. The relief claimed in such situations has no mathematical exactitude. The common law principles of assessment on award of damages do not apply to matters brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. By virtue of the provision of section 35(6) of the 1999 Constitution, any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained is entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person specified by law. And so a person who has proved that he was unlawfully arrested and detained is automatically entitled to award of compensation. See: Jim-Jaja v. C.O.P. Rivers State (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt, 1350) 225.

---

CASES CITED

---

None

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

Court of Appeal Rules 2011|Court of Appeal Act|Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure, Rules 1979)|

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT