CHINA CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION NIGERIA LIMITED (CCECC NIG. LTD) & ORS V ABDUL-AKEEM BELLO & ORS

Legalpedia Citation: (2024-12) Legalpedia 21678 (CA)

In the Court of Appeal

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

Wed Dec 4, 2024

Suit Number: CA/IB/41/2019

CORAM

PARTIES

CHINA CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION NIGERIA LIMITED (CCECC NIG. LTD)
MR. LIU (LEE) (MANAGER CCECC NIG ODEDA PROJECT SITE)
MR. TONNY (MEMBER OF STAFF NIG. LTD)
MR. TOLU (PROJECT MANAGER CCECC NIG. LTD ODEDA PROJECT SITE)

APPELLANTS

ABDUL-AKEEM BELLO
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OGUN STATE
CSP. O. BAKARE (DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER IBARA DIVISIONAL HEADQUARTERS, ABEOKUTA)

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 1st Respondent filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Appellants (employees of China Civil Engineering Construction Corporation) alleging violations of his rights to dignity and personal liberty. He claimed he was illegally detained and tortured after organizing workers to protest. The Appellants contended they merely reported a case of public disorder to police after the 1st Respondent allegedly instigated workers to down tools and threaten other workers. The trial court ruled in favor of the 1st Respondent, awarding damages against the Appellants

HELD

The appeal was dismissed. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and awarded costs of N500,000 against the Appellants.

ISSUES

Whether considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the trial court was right in granting declaratory and injunctive reliefs.
Whether the appeal as instituted was competent to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RIGHT TO DIGNITY – BURDEN OF PROOF IN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS:

“It is very clear from these provisions of the law that the burden of proof lies on the Applicant in fundamental right enforcement proceedings and it is only after the 1st Respondent has successfully discharged the burden of proof of the existence of the alleged facts that the burden shifts to the Appellant.” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu, J.C.A.

TRADE UNION ACTIVITIES – WHETHER A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT:

“As members of Trade Union and Trade
Union Activities by a worker is a Constitutional Right under Section 40 of the
1999 Constitution no worker shall be prejudiced by reason of Trade Union
Activities as provided for in Section 5(6)(b)(ii) of the Labor Act Cap LI Laws
of the Federation of Nigeria.” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu, J.C.A.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION – SCOPE OF PROTECTION:

“The 1st Respondents and others who
participated in the alleged demonstration was in the exercise of their
constitutional right as enshrined under the provision of Section 39 of the 1999
Constitution which provides; ’39 every person shall be entitled to freedom of
expression, including freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas
and information without interference.'” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu, J.C.A.

ALLEGATION OF CRIME – EFFECT ON FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:

“A mere allegation of crime or
wrong-doing against a suspect, irrespective of its seriousness, cannot operate
to curtail the fundamental rights of the suspect nor can it operate to justify
the incarceration and torture of the suspect.” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu,
J.C.A.

LEGIBILITY OF DOCUMENTS – DUTY OF PARTY:

“It is the position of the law that a
party who rely on document as an Exhibit attached to the party’s affidavit has
the duty to provide a legible and comprehensible copy of the document if the
party wants the Court to read and rely on the said document in its
process.” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu, J.C.A.

UNLAWFUL DETENTION – RIGHT TO COMPENSATION:

“Since the 1st Respondent has
established the breach of his Fundamental Human Right, he is entitled to
compensation and apology.” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu, J.C.A.

PROOF OF BIAS – REQUIREMENT:

“To establish or prove an element of
bias or likelihood of bias, cogent, concrete, reliable, positive and direct
evidence must be adduced to sustain an allegation of bias or likelihood of bias
against a judge.” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu, J.C.A.

POLICE POWERS – LIMITS OF EXERCISE:

“There is no doubt the police have a
wide scope of powers to arrest, detain all in the cause of investigating a
crime by virtue of Sections 4 and 24 of the Police Act. However, where the
power is improperly used, the Court must intervene and curtail the excesses of
power.” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu, J.C.A.Z

NOTICE OF APPEAL – EFFECT OF DEFECTS:

“The Notice of Appeal contains or
carries all the requisite articles or particulars of a valid Notice of Appeal
except for its wrong heading…I do not think that this makes the Notice of
Appeal incompetent as to rob this Court of its jurisdiction to hear and
determine same.” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu, J.C.A.

MALICIOUS REPORT – LIABILITY:

“The report was obviously false,
malicious, ill-motivated and without foundation.” – Per Binta Fatima
Zubairu, J.C.A.

JOINT LIABILITY – BASIS FOR FINDING:

“For the Appellants to be held liable
for violating the 1st Respondents fundamental rights, it must be shown that the
Appellants did more than lodge a formal report with the police.” – Per
Binta Fatima Zubairu, J.C.A.

DETENTION PERIOD – CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS:

“The incident
occurred on the 30th June, 2018. The medical treatment’s report issued by the
2nd Respondent (The DPO) is dated 2nd July, 2018. This proves that the 1st
Respondent was in custody and under detention for over a period of one day
contrary to the constitutional provision.” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu,
J.C.A

COMPENSATION AND APOLOGY – CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT:

“(6) Any person who is unlawfully
arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from
the appropriate authority or person.” – Per Binta Fatima Zubairu, J.C.A.