Legalpedia Citation: (2015-04) Legalpedia (SC) 01002
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
Fri Apr 17, 2015
Suit Number: SC. 42/2005
CORAM
FATAYIA-WILLIAMS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1.CAPTAIN SHULGIN OLEKSANDR
2.TYRKIN ANATOLIY
3.COLUB ANALOLIY
4.VLASYUK GENNADIY
5.TIMCHENKO VOLODYMYR
APPELLANTS
LONESTAR DRILLING COMPANY LTD.
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Applicants/Appellants in this appeal were crew members in a vessel named Dudai Valour. Dubai Valour was arrested and place under the Admiral Marshal upon an order of arrest made by the Federal High Court, sitting in Benin City in a matter instituted by the 1st Respondent against four other persons including the Vessel who happens to be the 4th Defendant in the matter. The Appellants who were not parties to the action before the Federal High Court Benin were unlawfully detained and denied right to disembark and leave the country with the arrested vessel without food, water, bunkers and medical supplies with their passports and seamen’s books seized. They thereafter, instituted an action against the Attorney General of the Federation, the 1st & 2nd Respondents in this appeal, and the Minister of Internal Affairs, for breach of their fundamental rights to personal freedom, and liberty at the Federal High Court in Lagos. After hearing their application, the trial court granted the reliefs sought by the Applicants but awarded no compensation. Dissatisfied with the ruling of the Trial Court both parties appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Respondents appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal while the Applicants/Appellants’ cross appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Applicant/Appellant has appealed to the Supreme Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the Court of Appeal was right to have exonerated the respondents herein (4th & 5th respondents at the trial court) from responsibility for breach of the appellants’ fundamental rights and the illegal and/or unlawful detention of the appellants in their vessel, “Dubai Valour” for over twenty (20) months? (Grounds 1, 4, 6 & 7).Is the decision by the Court of Appeal that the appellants were wrong to have initiated the human rights action in Lagos not an obiter dictum?
2. If no, whether the appellant’s initiation of the present action in Lagos could be said to be wrongful in law? (Ground 3).Does the judgment of the Court of Appeal in England on the same issue namely, whether the respondents were guilty or not of false/wrongful imprisonment and/or detention of the appellants’ hereto not constitute res judicata7 or issue estoppels as between the parties hereto and/or their privies in the circumstances of the case? (Grounds 5 & 9).Was it right for the Court of Appeal to have relied on what it called “fresh evidence” produced before the English Court alone, without more, to conclude that the respondents did not deny the appellants supply of food, bunkers and provisions? (Ground 8).Was the Court of Appeal right in failing and/or refusing to award any monetary compensation in favour of the appellants and against the respondents herein for the illegal and/or unlawful breach of the appellants’ fundamental rights? (Ground 2).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION- GROUNDS UPON WHICH AN ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION IN AN APPEAL CAN BE FORMULATED.
‘‘The law is indeed well stated that the reasoning of a judge while on the journey in getting to the destination of a judgment or ruling could make some remarks along the way assisting him on a smooth soil, taking into his stride the peculiar style of the particular judge, these accessories remain what they are tools to propel a process and never the substantive basis of the decision and so cannot be ground f or appeal upon which an issue for determination would be anchored.’’ PER. UKAEGO PETER-ODILI J.S.C
ISSUE ESTOPPEL- WHEN ISSUE ESTOPPEL WILL ARISE
‘‘Issue estoppel may arise where a plea of res judicata could not be established because the cause of action is not the same. See: Adedayo Vs Babalola (1995) 7 NWLR (Pt.408) 383” PER. Kekere-Ekun J.S.C.
PLEA OF ESTOPPEL- A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM OUSTS THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
‘‘A successful plea of estoppel per rem judicatam ousts the jurisdiction of the court before which it is raised, See: Igbeke Vs Okadigbo (2013) 12 NWLR (Pt.1368) 225 @ 254 D – E; Igweoo Vs Ezeugo (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.249) 561’’ PER. Kekere-Ekun J.S.C.
UNAPPEALED DECISION OF THE COURT- THE DECISION OF THE COURT NOT APPEALED AGAINST REMAINS VALID
‘‘It is settled law that a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction not appealed against remains valid, subsisting and binding between the parties and is presumed to be acceptable to them. See: Iyoho Vs Effionq (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt.1044) 31; S.P.D.C. Nig. Ltd. Vs X.M. Federal Ltd. & Anor. (2006) 16
NWLR (Pt.1004) 189; Adeiobi & Anor. Vs The State (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt.1261) 347. “ PER. Kekere-Ekun J.S.C.
PARTICULARS OF ERROR IN AN APPEAL- PARTICULARS OF ERROR MUST NOT BE INDEPENDENT OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL BUT ANCILLARY TO IT.
‘‘The law is settled that particulars of error alleged in a ground of appeal are intended to highlight the complaint against the judgment on appeal. They are the specification of the error or misdirection complained of in order to demonstrate how the complaint will be canvassed in an attempt to reveal the flaw in a particular portion of the judgment. Particulars must not be independent of the ground of appeal but ancillary to it, See: Globe Fishino Ind, Ltd. Vs Coker (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt.162) 265; Osasona Vs Ajayi (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.894) 527 @
545 E – H; Diamond Bank Ltd. Vs P.I.C. Co. Ltd. (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt.1172) 67.” PER. Kekere-Ekun J.S.C.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL – A GROUND OF APPEAL MUST NOT ONLY BE RELATED TO THE DECISION OF THE COURT BUT ALSO TO THE RATIO DECIDENDI
‘‘As a follow up a ground of appeal against a decision must therefore not only be related to the decision itself but should also be the challenge to its ratio decid endi. see Akibu v Odunton (2000) 13 NWLR (pt. 685) 446 at 46;Coker v UBA (1997) 4 SCNJ 130 at 145.’’ PER. UKAEGO PETER-ODILI J.S.C
INTERFERENCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF A LOWER COURT- THE APPELLATE COURT WILL ONLY INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT WHERE SUCH IS PERVERSE
‘‘It is settled law that an appellate court would not interfere with the judgment of a lower court unless it is shown that the decision is perverse; or that it is not based on a proper appraisal of the evidence; or there is a misapplication of the law to findings of fact properly made; or that there has been a miscarriage of justice occasioned by an error in procedural or substantive law. See: Aboseldehyde Laboratories Plc. Vs Union Merchant Bank Ltd. & Anor. (2013) 13 NWLR (Pt.1370) 91; Ojukwu Vs Obasanjo (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt.886) 169 @ 214; Nasiru Vs C.O.P. (1980) 1 – 2 SC 61; Saleh Vs B.O.N. Ltd. (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt.976) 316; Aqbaje Vs Fashola (2008) 6 NWLR (Pt.1082) 9O @ 153 B – E.’’ PER. Kekere-Ekun J.S.C.
ISSUE ESTOPPEL AND ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM-DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ISSUE ESTOPPEL AND ESTOPPEL PER REM JUDICATAM
‘‘It is pertinent to note that although issue estoppel and estoppel per rem judicatam both come under one head of estoppel by judgment, there are subtle differences between the two. The difference was clearly illustrated by this court in: Oshodi Vs Eyifunmi (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt 684) 298 @ 326 A – D,’’ PER. Kekere-Ekun J.S.C.
REQUIREMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF A GROUND OF APPEAL – THE PARTICULARS OF A GROUND OF APPEAL ARE EXPECTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE MISDIRECTION COMPLAINED OF.
‘‘The particulars of a ground of appeal are expected to highlight briefly the misdirection or error in law complained of. The merit of the appeal should not be argued under the guise of supplying particulars. This is because an appeal is argued not on the grounds of appeal but on the basis of issues formulated
therefrom, which may encompass more than one ground of appeal.’’ PER. Kekere-Ekun J.S.C.
OBITA DICTUM – WHETHER AN APPELLANT CAN APPEAL AGAINST AN OBITA DICTUM
‘‘It has become trite that an obiter dictum is not covered within the ambit of section 233(2) and (3) of the constitution as those appealable areas for the consideration of on appellate court. See Obatoyinbo v Oshotoba (1996) 5 NWLR (pt. 450) 531 or 549; Oni v Foyemi (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1089) 4OO at 427. “ PER. UKAEGO PETER-ODILI J.S.C
RIGHT TO APPEAL – LITIGANT’S RIGHT TO APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 233(2) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION.
‘‘The right conferred on a litigant pursuant to Section 233 (2) of the 1999 Constitution is the right to appeal against decisions of the Court of Appeal in respect of the matters enumerated therein.’’ PER. Kekere-Ekun J.S.C.
PLEA OF RES JUDICATA- CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF RES JUDICATA
‘‘The conditions precedent to a successful plea of res judicata were amply set out by this Court in the case of The Honda Place Ltd. Vs Globe Motors Ltd. (2005) 14 NWLR (945) 273 at 291
(a) There must be an adjudication of the issues joined by the parties,
(b) The parties or their privies as the case may be must be the same in the present case as in the previous
(c) The issues and subject matter must be the same in the previous case as in the present case.
(d) The adjudication on the previous case must have been by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(e) The previous decision must have finally decided the issue between the parties, that is the rights of the parties must have been finally determined.’’ PER. Kekere-Ekun J.S.C.
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria(as amended