COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, EKIADOLOR & ORS v. J.A. OBAYAGBONA
April 24, 2025GUARANTY TRUST BANK PLC V. FOX GLOVE NIG. LTD
April 24, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2016) Legalpedia (CA) 29123
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT OWERRI
Thu Mar 24, 2016
Suit Number: CA/OW/337/2014
CORAM
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1.BERNARD ANOGWIE2.IKECHUKWU OBI3.ERNEST ASIEGBU4.AGU INNOCENT APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The 1st Respondent reported a case of conspiracy to commit fraud, fraud and stealing of the sum of (N2, 300,000.00) against the Applicants to the Police. The Applicants were the promoters and leaders of Ugiri Progressive Union Weekly Contribution, Okigwe Branch. Subsequently the 2nd Respondent (Investigating Police Officer), effected the arrest of the Applicants and took statements from them, alleging that the Applicants admitted in their statements criminal implication and that they pleaded that criminal charge be suspended. The Applicants were given one week to settle with 1st Respondent, by paying through the Police the said debt. The Applicants were however invited back to the Police station upon default in keeping to the settlement terms and were detained during which they were forced to sign a written agreement to settle the 1st Respondent’s claim. The Applicants however made a down payment, through the Police to the 1st Respondent which prompted the police to suspend the arraignment of the Applicants and they were released on bail and given time to complete the payment to the 1st Respondent. Subsequently, the Applicant brought an action against the Respondents for enforcement of his fundamental right which they alleged have been breached by the Respondents by unlawfully detaining them beyond the provision of law and torture of their persons in contravention of Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended and Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act). During the trial, the Respondents did not file any counter to deny the averment made by the Applicants. The trial Courts after considering the evidence and arguments of both parties gave ruling in favor of the Applicants thereby granting them all the orders prayed except relief 5, which sought Ten Million Naira as damages for unlawful detention and torture, hence an appeal by the Applicants against that part of the decision of the lower court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
? Whether the trial judge was correct to refuse to award damages to the Appellants after holding that their fundamental rights had been violated by their arrest and detention by the Respondents, from 29th May to 23rd June, 2014.”
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION -ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION MUST RELATE WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL
“The law is trite, that issue for determination of appeal, has to relate to and flow from the ground(s) of appeal, to be competent, and that a party cannot formulate more issues than the number of grounds of appeal, raised to challenge the decision of the trial Court.” PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
UNLAWFUL DETENTION-WHETHER UNLAWFUL DETENTION AMOUNTS TO A BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
“In the case of Gusau & Ors Vs Umezuruike (2012) LPELR – 8000 (CA), this Court held:
“… that detention, no matter how short, can lie a breach of fundamental right. But that can only be so if the detention is adjudged wrongful or unlawful in the first place; that is, if there is no legal foundation to base the arrest and/or detention of the applicant.” See Okonkwo Vs Ogbogu (1996)5 NWLR (PT.499)420; Isenalumhe Vs Joyce Amadin (2001)CHR 458; Nemi Vs A.G. Lagos State (1996)6 NWLR (pt..452).”
– PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – EFFECT OF A VIOLATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF AN APPLICANT
“I think the law is trite and the case law on this issue is replete, that once the Court has found that the fundamental rights of applicant has been violated by the act(s) or conduct of a respondent, the affected person (applicant) is entitled to compensation, in the circumstances. That too was/is the intent of the law in Section 35 (6) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, which says:
“Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person.” PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
POLICE – CONSEQUENCES OF THE USE OF POLICE IN SETTLING PRIVATE DISPUTE
“The position is and has always been that the private individual who uses the police to settle a private score, would himself be liable for the wrongful act of the police. See the case of Nkpa vs. Nkume (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.710) 543 and a host of other decided cases on the subject”. PER F. O. OHO, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A RESPONDENT CAN FORMULATE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION OUTSIDE THE GROUND OF APPEAL
“In the case of Onuegbu & Ors Vs Gov. of Imo State & Ors (2015) LPELR – 25968 (CA) this Court held that:
the Respondent has no room to formulate issue(s) for determination of appeal, outside the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant, except he had cross appealed or raised a Respondents Notice on the issue, raised.” See Agbarakwe Vs University Press Plc (2015) 6 CAR 188 at 201; Ojegbe Vs Omatore (1999)6 NWLR (Pt.608) 591; Bawa Vs Aliyu (2015)3 NWLR (pt.1447) 523.” PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
GROUND OF APPEAL -A SINGLE GROUND OF APPEAL CANNOT GENERATE TWO ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.
“It is also trite law that a ground of appeal cannot be split to generate two or more issues for determination, whereas two or more grounds of appeal can combine to give birth to an issue for determination of appeal. See Ossai Vs FRN (2013) 13 WRN 87; SPDCN Ltd Vs Registrar Business Premises, Abia State (2015) 8 CAR 443 at 448; (2016)2 NWLR (pt.1496) 326; Igbokwe Vs Edom & Ors (2015) 8 CAR 224 at 240.” PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
POWERS OF THE POLICE – DUTY OF THE COURTS ON THE IMPROPER EXERCISE OF POWERS BY THE POLICE
“Generally, the Court will not hesitate to declare any wrongful action of the police null and void if it is discovered that there had been an improper use of police power under the guise of the so-called exercise of the power of investigating and prevention of crimes. See the case of John Falade vs. Attn-Gen. Lagos State (1980) 2 NCLR 771, where it was held that the Court is always prepared and will be quick to give relief against any improper use of power or any abuse of power by any member of the Executive, the Police or any other person. See also the case of Chief Pat Enwere vs. C.O.P. (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.299) 333 on the subject”. PER F. O. OHO, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS –DUTY OF A RESPONDENT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS APPLICATION
Also in the case of Ejiofor Vs Okeke (2000)7 NWLR (pt.665), it was held:
“Where there is an evidence of arrest and detention which were done or instigated by the Respondent, in an action for enforcement of fundamental rights application, it is for the respondent to show that the arrest and detention were lawful. See Agbakoba Vs SSS (1994)6 NWLR (pt.351) 45.” PER I. G. MBABA, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
DUTIES OF THE POLICE- WHETHER THE DUTIES OF THE POLICE INCLUDES THE SETTLEMENT OF CIVIL DISPUTES
“The duties of the Police as provided under Section 4 of the Police Act, Cap 359 LFN 1990 does not include the settlement of civil disputes or the collection of debts or enforcement of civil agreements between parties. See the case of Mclarence vs. Jennings (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt.808) 470. See also the case of Afribank Nig. Plc vs. Onyima (2004) 2 NWLR (Pt.858) 654”. PER F. O. OHO, J.C.A<foo< p=””></foo<>
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement Act)
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)
