HYGINUS OKECHUKWU NNUBIA V. INTER CONTINENTAL BANK PLC
April 30, 2025ZENITH BANK PLC V. ALHAJI TITILAYO
April 30, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2015-06) Legalpedia (SC) 18761
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Jun 4, 2015
Suit Number: SC.127/2004
CORAM
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
MUHAMMAD SAIFULLAH MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE
PARTIES
1. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
2. MR. SAM INEGBENOSUN
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
4. MR. S. G. EHINDERO (CP)
5. MR. MONDAY TIM (ASP)
6. MR. EMMANUEL E. UDUBOR (CSP)
7. MR. WAHEED O. KASSIM (CP)
APPELLANTS
AITE OKOJIE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent as Plaintiff sued the Appellants as Defendants jointly, severally or in the alternative for unlawful arrest, unlawful/wrongful detention, malicious prosecution and abuse of legal process. The Plaintiff filed a thirty-five paragraph statement of defence; the Appellants i.e. the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed a 4-paragraph statement of defence while the 3rd to 7th Appellants as the 3rd to 7th Defendants did not file a statement of defence. At the trial, it was only the Plaintiff who testified in support of his case. Documents were admitted in evidence. Learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants, Mr. Adesami barely cross-examined the Plaintiff. The 3rd to 7th Defendants did not join issues with the Plaintiff and did not file a written address. It was only the Plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd Defendants counsel who filed written address. In a well-considered judgment, the Federal High Court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff. The Appellants and the 2nd to 6th Respondents as Appellants lodged an appeal before the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the decision of the trial Federal High Court and dismissed the appeal. This appeal is against that judgment.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
1. Whether the judgment of the Federal High Court which the court below affirmed was not a nullity having been delivered on a matter or cause in which the court has no jurisdiction?
2. Whether the court below was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial court finding the 1st and 2nd Appellants’ liable for wrongful arrest, wrongful detention and malicious prosecution and awarding exemplary damages against them, and Whether the arrest, detention and prosecution of the Respondent in the instant case by the police authorities was unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional?
3. Whether the court below was right when it affirmed the decision of the trial court and held that the claims of the plaintiff was not statute barred or caught by Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act Cap 379, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria?
4. Whether the award of the sum of N6,500,000.00 as exemplary and general damages in favour of the Respondent by the trial court and upheld by the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal was right in law, having due regard to the obvious facts that the Respondent did not in his Writ of Summons and/or statement of claims plead exemplary damages?
5. Whether the award of the sum of N6,500,000 in favour of the Respondent by the trial court was not manifestly too high and excessive in the circumstances, and Whether it was right in law for the trial court to award the sum of N6,500,000 as lump sum for exemplary and general damages without accessing the various items of damages under separate heads?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
“After judgment is delivered a party wins, while the other party loses the case. The party that lost is usually dissatisfied with the judgment and decides that the only way to show that the judgment is wrong is to file and argue an appeal. Aside from the requisites for a valid appeal, the Appellant must file a brief which must include issues for determination formulated from his grounds of appeal. These issues are called issues for determination. An Appeal court has power to adopt or even formulate issues that in its view would determine the complaints of the Appellant. In considering issues for determination, judges should lean towards adopting the issues formulated by the appellant. After all it is the Appellant who filed the appeal. So he ought to know what his grievances are. But where the issues formulated by the Appellant are not properly couched, prolix, or vague, or do not properly address grave errors in the judgment, the court would be at liberty to formulate issues that properly address the grievance of the Appellant. At times, issues formulated by the Respondent are better formulated. The court should have no hesitation adopting such issues. See Ikegwuoha v. Ohawuchi (1996) 3 NWLR (pt. 433) p. 146; Aduku v. Adejoh (1994) 5 NWLR (pt 346) p. 582.”-
JURISDICTION- NATURE OF JURISDICTION
“Jurisdiction, when raised in court is a very serious matter. It is the basis on which a case is tried. Where a court lacks jurisdiction and it goes ahead to hear and decide a matter, no matter how well the case is conducted and decided it would in the end amount to a nullity. See Bronik Motors Ltd & anor v. WEMA Bank Ltd (1983) 1 SCNLR p.296; Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 ANLR p. 587 .
Jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution or some specific law. It is a threshold issue, so once raised it must be decided quickly. The issue of jurisdiction is fundamental to the hearing of all cases. Jurisdiction can be raised in the trial court, on appeal or in the Supreme Court for the first time as in this case. See Usman Dan Fodio University v. Kraus Thompson Organisation Ltd (2001) 15 NWLR pt. 736 p. 305.
The well settled position of the law is that the Plaintiffs pleading determines jurisdiction. See PCHSC Ltd & 3 ors v. Migfo Nig Ltd (2012) 6 SC (pt.iii) p.1; Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 1 SC (pt.i) p.1.” –
JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT – EXTENT OF THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT
“Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution is now Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. They are identical. So, for ease of reference I shall rely on Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution. It reads:
251(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by an Act of the National Assembly, the Federal High Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of any other court in civil causes and matters.
(p) the administration or the management and control of the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
(g) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the operation and interpretation of this Constitution in so far as it affects the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
(r) any action or proceeding for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decision by the Federal Government or any of its agencies;
Provided that nothing in the provisions of paragraphs (p), (q), (r) of this subsection shall prevent a person from seeking redress against the Federal Government or any of its agencies in an action for damages, injunction or specific performance where the action is based on any enactment, law or equity.
Under Section 230 of the 1979 Constitution now Section 251 of the 1999 Constitution, the Federal High Court is conferred with exclusive jurisdiction in civil causes and matters that arise from the administration, management and control of the Federal Government; the operation and interpretation of the Constitution as it affects the Federal Government and any action or proceedings for a declaration or injunction affecting the validity of any executive or administrative action or decisions by the Federal Government. The jurisdiction also affects the agencies of the Federal Government.
The proviso is clear. It cannot be invoked where no relevant enactment, law or equity authorizes an action for damages, injunction or specific performance. NEPA v. Edegbero (2002) 18 NWLR (pt.798) p.79, NERDC v. Gonze Nig (2000) 9 NWLR (PT.673) P.542, Elelu-Habeeb & anor v. A.G. Federation & 2 ors (2012) 2 SC (pt.1) p.145, Obiuweubi v. CBN (2011) 2-3 SC (pt.1) p.46
Under Section 251(1)(a) to (c) of the Constitution, the Federal High Court would have exclusive jurisdiction if and only if:
(a) The Plaintiff’s action is one of the causes of action, under Section 251(1)(a) to (s) of the Constitution.
(b) The parties or a party must be the Federal Government or an agency of the Federal Government.
(c) There must be a claim against the Federal Government or the agency of the Federal Government.
(a), (b) and (c) above must be present before a Federal High Court can have jurisdiction under Section 251(1) of the Constitution.”
–
PLEADINGS – WHETHER PLEADINGS CONSTITUTE EVIDENCE
“Pleadings are no evidence. The Defendant must call evidence to support his averments. Where this is not done, the Defendant is deemed to have abandoned his defence. See Okechukwu v. Okafor (1961) 2 SCNLR p.369. Evidence that is not challenged or discredited should be accepted and relied on if such evidence is adduced to establish a relevant fact. See Incar (Nig) Ltd v. Adegboye (1985) (pt.8) P.453.” –
ACTION AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICER- TIME FRAME FOR COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act states that:
“2. Where any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any act or law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such act, Law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect-
(a) Limitation of time- the action, prosecution, or proceeding shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after, the ceasing thereof- Provided that if the action, prosecution or proceeding be at the instance of any person for cause arising while such person was a convict prisoner, it may be commenced within three months after the discharge of such person from prison………”
Section 2(a) supra is a Limitation provision.
Limitation Law sets out the time within which an action must be brought. It protects a defendant from the injustice of having to face a stale claim. For example if a claim is brought a long time after the events in question, there is a strong likelihood that evidence which was available earlier may no longer be available, the memories of witnesses may have faded. Where actions are brought against public officers, such actions must be brought quickly, that is to say within 3 months after accrual of the Plaintiff’s cause of action as provided by Section 2 supra’.
ACTION AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICER – RATIONALE FOR COMMENCING AN ACTION AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICER WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME – INSTANCE WHEN A PUBLIC OFFICER CANNOT BE PROTECTED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT
“The three months time frame for bringing actions against public officers is designed to protect the public officers who are very busy people from being distracted from having to answer frivolous and vexatious litigation or be submerged in a sea of litigation usually at the instance of professional litigants. The Plaintiff must seek prompt action for the breach of his rights in a court of law within the time stipulated. If he fails to come within 3 months he has a cause of action but sadly one that is unenforceable or cannot be heard by the courts as the courts cease to have jurisdiction over actions brought after three months. Public Officers are protected if they act in good faith in the dispensation of their duties, but would be afforded no protection for acts that amount to abuse of office or that cannot be legally justified. See Olagunju & anor v. PHCN (2011) 4 SC (pt.1) p.152; Yare v. NSWIC (2013) 5-6 SC (pt.1) p.108.” –
ACTION AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICER – STATUS OF AN ACTION FILED AFTER THE STATUTORY PERIOD
“The well laid down interpretation of the limitation law, in this case, section 2 supra is that an action filed in court after three months from the date the cause of action accrued is statute barred, but where the cause of action is a continuing act or a case of continuance of damage or injury, the three months starts to run from the cessation of the continuing act, damage or injury, and if the action is at the instance of a prisoner, he may commence his action within three months after he is allowed home from prison.” –
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – WHETHER A CLAIM FOR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES MUST BE EXPRESSLY PLEADED
“It is now settled principle of law that to be entitled, a claim for exemplary damages need not be pleaded expressly.
It is enough if the facts in the pleading support the award of exemplary damages to avoid being taken by surprise. See C.E.S. v. Ikot 1999 12 SC (pt.ii) p.133. I agree with both courts below. Exemplary damages are awarded with the object of punishing the defendant for his conduct in inflicting injury on the plaintiff. They can be made in addition to normal compensatory damages and should be made only:
(a) in a case of oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional acts by Government servants;
(b) where the defendant’s conduct had been calculated by him to make a profit for himself which might well exceed the compensation payable to the Plaintiff;
(c) where expressly authorized by statute. See Gov. Of Lagos State v. Ojukwu (1986) 1 NWLR (pt 18) p. 621;
Alele Williams v. Sagay (1995) 5 NWLR (pt. 396) p. 441.” –
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT – BINDINGNESS OF THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT ON ALL COURTS
“The well laid down position of the doctrine of precedence is that decisions of the Supreme Court are binding, on all courts, but where judgments of the Supreme Court are in conflict all courts are bound by the latest decision of the Supreme Court. CEC v. Ikot (supra) supports my reasoning and courts are to be bound by it since it is the last decision on whether exemplary damages should be specifically claimed or if pleaded facts to justify it would do.” –
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES – EFFECT OF WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
“The amount of damages awarded by a trial court is based on evidence before the court. Where there is no evidence to support the claim for damages, the claim would be dismissed. See WAEC v. Koroye 1977 2 SC p.45.” –
AWARD OF DAMAGES – INSTANCES WHERE AN APPEAL COURT WILL INTERFERE WITH AN AWARD OF DAMAGES BY A TRIAL COURT
“ Damages are awarded at the discretion of the trial judge and so an appeal court is slow to interfere with how the trial judge exercises his discretion unless
(a) the exercise is tainted with illegality or substantial irregularity.
(b) If it is in the interest of justice to interfere
(c) The discretion is wrongly exercised
See University of Lagos v. Aigoro (1985) 1 NWLR (pt.1) p.143; Salu v. Egibon (1994) 6 NWLR (pt. 348) p. 27.” –
PLEADINGS – STATUS OF PLEADINGS WITHOUT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACTS AVERRED
“Pleadings without evidence to prove the facts averred is of no use in settling a dispute one way or the other. Pleadings require evidence to be of any help to the parties and the Court of trial. The 1st and 2nd appellants, having abandoned their Statement of Defence, did not join issues with the respondents and are deemed to have admitted the material averments in the Statement of Claim.” See Salzgitter Stahl (GMBH) v. Tunji Dosunmi Industries Ltd (2010) 42 (Pt.2) NSQR 1085 at 1109.” –
STATUTE OF LIMITATION – VALIDITY OR OTHERWISE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INSTITUTED AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PRESCRIBED STATUTORY PERIOD
“It is trite that where a statute of limitation prescribes period within which an action must be commenced, legal proceedings cannot be properly or validly instituted after the expiration of the prescribed period. Where an action is statute-barred, a plaintiff who might have had a cause of action loses the right to enforce it by judicial process because the period of the time laid down by the limitation of time for instituting the action has elapsed. See Aremo II v. Adekanye & Ors (2004) 13 NWLR (Pt.891) 572, Eboigbe v NNPC (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt.347) 649, Odubeko v. Fowler (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.308) 637.”-
LIMITATION PERIOD – WHEN LIMITATION PERIOD STARTS TO RUN IN A CASE OF CONTINUOUS DAMAGE.
“Section 2(a) of the Public Officers Protection Act provides:
“Where any action, prosecution or other proceeding is commenced against any person for any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of any act or law or of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such act, law, duty or authority, the following provisions shall have effect-
(a) Limitation of time – the action or prosecution shall not lie or be instituted unless it is commenced within three months next after the act, neglect or default complained of, or in case of a continuance of damage or injury, within three months next after the ceasing thereof -”
By the above provision, where the injury complained of is continuous, the limitation period shall not start to run until the ceasure of the act causing the injury” –
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Public Officers Protection Act, 2009
