BASSEY NKANTA MBANG VS W/PC JANET

CORAM

PARTIES

BASSEY NKANTA MBANG APPELLANTS

1.W/PC JANET

2.C. O. P. AKWA IBOM STATE

3.ELDER GODWIN MBANG NKANTA

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The events which led to the case at the lower court was that, the Applicant/3rd Respondent was arrested by the police consequent upon the complaint against him by the 1st Respondent/Appellant for breaking into his farm on two occasions to destroyed his crops. Thus, the Applicant/3rd Respondent instituted an action at the High Court of Akwa Ibom, Eket for the enforcement of his fundamental right which had been infringed upon by the 1st Respondent/Appellant and the 2nd-3rd Respondent. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found in favour of the Applicant/3rd Respondent and discountenanced the counter-affidavit of the 1st Respondent/Appellant. Aggrieved by this, the 1st Respondent/Appellant has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

HELD

Appeal Allowed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the learned trial (sic) Judge was right when he disbelieved and discarded the Counter Affidavit of the appellant on the ground and basis that the first and second respondents did not file their Counter Affidavit, and went further to find the appellant liable to the third respondent’s claims?

2. Whether the appellant was right in the circumstances of this case to have lodged a complaint to the Police against the third respondent for destroying his crops?

3. Whether on the evidence before the trial court, the third respondent had proved and/or established that any of his fundamental rights had been, is (sic) being or is (sic) likely to be infringed by the appellant?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – MAKING LEGITIMATE COMPLAINTS TO THE POLICE AND SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION OF SUCH COMPLAINT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A BREACH OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PERSON COMPLAINED OF.

“Breach of fundamental rights does not cover cases were a respondent has made a legitimate complaint to the police; or cases were the police investigate and act on complaints duly made to them.” PER O.A. OTISI, J.C.A.

POWERS OF THE POLICE – THE POLICE HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF RECEIVING AND INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS MADE TO IT.

“The Police have the prerogative for the reception of criminal complaints and the investigation of such complaints, see per Mukhtar JSC (as she then was) in Fajemirokun v Commercial Bank (2009) LPELR-SC.336/2002. Ordinarily, therefore, such citizens who make such criminal complaints do not have control over the activities or duties of the Police in anyway whatsoever, Dumbell v Roberts (1944) 1 All ER 326, approvingly, adopted in Fajemirokun v Commercial Bank (supra); Samuel Isheno v Julius Berger Nig Plc [2008] 4 MJSC 104, 129; also, Adefunmilayo v Oduntan (1958) WNLR 31; Gbajorv Ogunburegui (1961) All NLR 882; Ezeadukwa v Maduka (1997) 8 NWLR (pt 518) 635, 666; Gani Fawehinmi v Col. Halilu Akilu & Ors [1987] 5 NWLR (pt 67) 797; A.G., Anambra State M Chris Uba (2005) 33 WRN 199.” PER C.C. NWEZE, J.C.A.

ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – APPLICATIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE DETERMINED BY AFFIDAVIT EVIDENCE WHICH MUST BE PROPERLY EVALUATED.

“Applications to enforce fundamental rights are, by the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 determined by the affidavit evidence of the parties. It is therefore the affidavit evidence before the trial court that the trial court relies upon for the determination of the matter. The affidavit evidence must be properly evaluated.” PER O.A. OTISI, J.C.A.

Legalpedia Citation: (2014) Legalpedia (CA) 97412

In the Court of Appeal

Mon Mar 10, 2014

Suit Number: CA/C/304/2011