BARRISTER JOHN DURU VS PATRICK NWANGWU - Legalpedia | The Complete Lawyer - Research | Productivity | Health

BARRISTER JOHN DURU VS PATRICK NWANGWU

LEWIS OPARA VS DOWEL SCHLUMBERGER (NIGERIA) LIMITED & ANOR
June 6, 2025
ENGINEER GOODNEWS AGBI VS CHIEF AUDU OGBEH & ORS
June 6, 2025
LEWIS OPARA VS DOWEL SCHLUMBERGER (NIGERIA) LIMITED & ANOR
June 6, 2025
ENGINEER GOODNEWS AGBI VS CHIEF AUDU OGBEH & ORS
June 6, 2025
Show all

BARRISTER JOHN DURU VS PATRICK NWANGWU

Legalpedia Citation: (2006-05) Legalpedia 44662 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Abuja

Fri May 26, 2006

Suit Number: SC.255/2001

CORAM


I. L. KUTIGI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

A. I. KATSINA-ALU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

I. C.ACHOLONU JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

S. A. AKINTAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT

M. A. MUKHTAR JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT


PARTIES


BARRISTER JOHN DURU

MASTER CHIZOBA OGARAKU

 

APPELLANTS 


PATRICK NWANGWU

NONYELUM NWANGWU

RESPONDENTS 


AREA(S) OF LAW


ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

 

 


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. The decision of Court of Appeal was affirmed.

 

 


ISSUES


Whether appellants’ claim in toto is only cognizable under S.32 of the 1979 Constitution and whether the said section had been suspended by Act No. 107 of 1993? (Otherwise known as Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree 1993).

 

 


RATIONES DECIDENDI



ENFORCEMENT OF ENTRENCHED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

 

 


CASES CITED



STATUTES REFERRED TO



CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Comments are closed.