CHIEF (HON) NKWO NNABUCHI & ORS V. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSISTANT &ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2025-02) Legalpedia 19618 (SC)

In the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Fri Feb 14, 2025

Suit Number: SC.147/2007

CORAM

Uwani Musa Abba Aji Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Adamu Jauro Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Chioma Egondu Nwosu-Iheme Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Obande Festus Ogbuinya Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

Habeeb Adewale Olumuyiwa Abiru Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria

PARTIES

CHIEF (HON) NKWO NNABUCHI

CHIEF (HON) K. G. ENENMUO NDUKA NATTY ONOCHIE NZEKWE EBERE ONUAGBA JONATHAN NWAJIDEOBU CHETA EGWU ONYIBO BASIL UBIA CHUKWUMA EGWU NKEAKONA OKEKE MADUKA NWAKWUE SUNDAY ORAKA MADUKA ONUGHA EMEHA NNANWUDE NATTY ORAELI CYRIL ORJI CHARLES ORAKWE OBIEKE MODE KENNETH NWOYE EJIOFOR NWAKOZOR EBIEKWE ACHUFUNA ORANWUSI OKOYE NWAFOR OKAFOR ARINZE JIDEOFOR OBEY NDIELI ONWUKA ONYEKA CHIMA AFAM NWADEBE JAPHET EGWU JUSTIN UNDEMGHA DANIEL NWANWOBI NWOYE EGWU UCHE NNABUCHI CHINEDU NWENU CHUKWUDI IGANDU JOHN ARON

APPELLANTS

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ANAMBRA STATE AREA COMMANDER, NIGERIA POLICE, AWKA DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, ACHIALA, AWKA NORTH LGA SUPT OF POLICE, SULE KADIRI AND Chief C. Ezenagu Chief M. C. Nwanhwo Chief U. Nwodo Azudmma Ndibe Dr. N. N. Oraekie Uzoma Mbonu Samuel Nnamah Sunday Mbamalu (For themselves and on behalf of others parading as Cabinet of Nelson Oraebie and or Members of Defunct M. C. Nwanbwor led Mgbabwu Progressive Union)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, COURTS, APPEAL, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, RATIO DECIDENDI, OBITER DICTUM, JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, POLICE REGULATIONS

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Appellants commenced an action in the Federal High Court sitting in Enugu under the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules. They sought enforcement of their fundamental rights to human dignity, liberty, and movement as guaranteed under Sections 34, 35, and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, an order restraining the Respondents from causing their arrest and detention, general damages of N999 Million, and a perpetual injunction.

During the proceedings, the Appellants changed their legal representation. The new Counsel, upon reviewing the case file, informed the trial Court that he wished to discontinue the action as he believed the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. Counsel to the second set of Respondents agreed that the matter was incompetent ab initio and applied for dismissal with costs. The Appellants’ Counsel argued against the dismissal and costs, stating it would amount to visiting the mistake of Counsel on the litigant. Nevertheless, the trial Court dismissed the suit and awarded costs of N10,000.00 on June 8, 2004.

Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed their appeal, set aside the dismissal order, and substituted it with an order striking out the case. The Court of Appeal also set aside the costs awarded. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal made a comment that the application to withdraw and the dismissal order were based on a misconception that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction on fundamental rights, noting that both State and Federal High Courts have concurrent jurisdiction on fundamental rights matters.

The Appellants were unhappy with this comment by the Court of Appeal and appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeal’s remarks regarding the concurrent jurisdiction of Federal and State High Courts in fundamental rights cases.

HELD

The appeal was struck out as incompetent.

The Supreme Court held that the challenged portions of the Court of Appeal’s judgment were mere passing remarks (obiter dictum) and not the principle or basis upon which the decision was based (ratio decidendi).

The Supreme Court ruled that an appeal does not lie against an obiter dictum of a lower Court, and an appeal directed at a passing remark is a misuse and abuse of the Court’s processes.

The appeal was determined to be academic as the Appellants had already obtained the relief they sought at the Court of Appeal (striking out instead of dismissal), and they were not aggrieved parties in the legal sense.

The parties were ordered to bear their respective costs of the appeal.

ISSUES

Whether the Court of Appeal was right in abandoning the germane question of the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court which was canvassed before it and suo motu raised and decided the question of whether the Federal High Court has jurisdiction to determine fundamental right cases, without calling upon Counsel to address the Court on the said question?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RATIO DECIDENDI – WHAT CONSTITUTES RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decedendi in a case represents the legal reasoning or principle or ground upon which a case is decided while an obiter dictum means the opinion of the Court which does not embody the resolution of the Court… Ratio decidendi is defined as the enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a Court has been decided. In other words, it is the general reasons given for the decision or the general grounds on which it is based, detached or abstracted from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision. It means what was decided. It is not something which a party imagines or thinks was decided…– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

OBITER DICTUM – MEANING AND EFFECT

Obiter dictum, on the other hand, simply entails comments or passing remarks by a Judge or Court, or its observation(s) which is certainly not meant to be the principle or the basis upon which the decision of the Court is based or hinged on. It is simply an observation or mere passing remark or comment. Such remark, comment or observation(s) is no doubt not meant to play any part in the decision the Court arrives at in its judgment…– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

OBITER DICTUM – NATURE AND PURPOSE

An obiter dictum is what the Judge says by the way, that is, it is a statement the Judge makes in the course of the decision or judgment. It is in most cases a mere casual and passing expression of the Judge. It is mostly a statement of an illustrative nature or based on hypothetical facts. It could be an observation made by the Judge on issues which do not fall for determination, considering the live issues before the Court, either of first instance or of appeal. Obiter dictum at times lends some romance and relaxation to the law and Judges resort to it in relevant instances. Let the Judges be allowed to express their minds in such instances. Such pronouncement at times embellish the law and that is good.– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

COMPETENCE OF APPEAL – APPEAL MUST BE BASED ON RATIO DECIDENDI

The law is settled beyond peradventure that an appeal and an issue for determination in an appeal, together with the arguments canvassed thereunder, must be predicated upon and be directed at the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Court appealed against…– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

APPEAL AGAINST OBITER DICTUM – EFFECT ON COMPETENCE

Where an appeal or an issue for determination does not arise from and/or is not directed at the ratio decidendi of the judgment appealed against, it is incompetent and liable to be struck out… Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

APPEAL – NECESSITY TO IMPEACH RATIONALE OF DECISION

An appeal must impeach the rationale upon which a decision was rendered. It is not open to an appellant to deviate from the ratio decidendi and dwell on issues which ultimately possess no significance to the ultimate conclusion of a Court or Tribunal. This would amount to chasing a mirage…– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

APPEAL AGAINST OBITER DICTUM – INCOMPETENCE OF SUCH APPEAL

An appeal does not lie against an obiter dictum of the lower Court… The law is settled that an appeal or ground of appeal against mere obiter dictum is incompetent…– Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

APPEALABLE DECISION – OBITER DICTUM NOT APPEALABLE

Where an opinion or remark is expressed by a Judge and such an opinion amounts to nothing and is baseless, it is not appealable. It is not a ratio decidendi of the decision of the Court. In this case, the observation made by the Court of Appeal, no doubt, was an obiter dictum. It played no part whatsoever in the decision reached by the Court or even by the maker himself. It was not a fit subject for appeal, as appeal is fought on the basis of the decision of the Court and is not taken against mere obiter. Not being appealable as an obiter, it is baseless and liable to be discountenanced. – Per HABEEB ADEWALE OLUMUYIWA ABIRU, J.S.C.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN OBITER DICTUM AND RATIO DECIDENDI

..an obiter dictum of a Court does not have the status of a ratio decidendi. An obiter dictum does not decide the live issues in the matter; a ratio decidendi does. – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

ACADEMIC APPEAL – EFFECT ON COMPETENCE

The second reason the appeal is incompetent is that it is academic. Assuming it is determined in favour of the Appellants and allowed, they stand to gain absolutely nothing as no benefit will be conferred on them as a result. The lower Court having held that the proper order was that of striking out, the Appellants became free to prosecute their claim before a Court they deemed proper. The determination of the appeal one way or the other would neither benefit nor hurt any of the parties. It is therefore a classic example of an academic appeal. – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

PERSON AGGRIEVED – WHO CAN APPEAL

An aggrieved person is a party who has suffered legal grievances or a party against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongly affected his right or title to something. It is the law that only a person aggrieved by a decision of a Court can appeal against same. In essence, a party to a matter cannot appeal against the decision if he has not wrongfully suffered a grievance or been deprived of an entitlement by that judgment. – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

LACK OF GRIEVANCE – EFFECT ON RIGHT OF APPEAL

The two issues submitted by the Appellants to the lower Court were determined in their favour and the appeal was accordingly allowed in its entirety. That being the case, the Appellants got what they prayed to the lower Court for, hence, they are not persons aggrieved by its judgment and can therefore not appeal against same. – Per ADAMU JAURO, J.S.C.

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS – APPEAL AGAINST OBITER DICTUM

This appeal was directed at a mere passing remark of the lower Court. It amounts to gross abuse of the processes of this Court and is accordingly struck out. – Per CHIOMA EGONDU NWOSU-IHEME, J.S.C.