CHIEF FALADE ONISAODU & ANOR VS CHIEF ASUNMO ELEWUJU & ANOR
June 5, 2025JUSTUS NWABUOKU & ORS V. FRANCIS ONWORDI & ORS
June 5, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2006) Legalpedia (SC) 09941
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri May 26, 2006
Suit Number: SC. 255/2001
CORAM
W. S. O. ONNOGHEN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
A. I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
I. C.ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S. A. AKINTAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
BARRISTER JOHN DURUMASTER CHIZOBA OGARAKU APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants filed a motion at the Federal High Court praying for a declaration that the arrest and detention of the Applicants at the Barracks Police Station, and the detention of the 1st Applicant at Bode Thomas Police Station for periods ranging from 2 days to 10 days without justification and the threat of detention or further detention of the Applicants is unconstitutional unlawful, illegal, null and void, an order restraining the Respondents, their Agents or privies from arresting, re-arresting or detaining the Applicants, and an order directing the Respondents jointly and/or severally to pay to the Applicants damages. Upon being served with the processes, the Respondents filed a motion on Notice for an order dismissing the action. The trial Judge dismissed the Respondents’ application. The Respondents’ appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed. The Court of Appeal further held that the Respondents could not be held liable for the arrest and detention of the Appellants and consequently struck off the names of the Respondents. Dissatisfied, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
The appeal was dismissed.
ISSUES
1. Whether section 32 of the 1979 Constitution was suspended by the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993. The Court of Appeal held that section 32 of the 1979 Constitution was suspended by the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993 2. If the answers to the question above are in the negative, whether it was proper for the lower court to have made definitive pronouncements on the substantive case upon a hearing of an interlocutory application.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
DUTY OF COURT- NOT TO RESOLVE SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS AT INTERLOCUTORY STAGE
“The resolution of the matter of the Respondents interlocutory application herein appealed against did not touch on the substantive issues before the Federal High Court”. PER KATSINA-ALU, JSC
CASES CITED
None.
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Section 1(2) of the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 107 of 1993 Section 32 of 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
