CHIEF ISAAC EGBUCHU V CONTINENTAL MERCHANT BANK PLC & ORS
April 25, 2025ATAINE HELEN BANDO V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 25, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2022-05) Legalpedia 60274 (CA)
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Thu Feb 25, 2016
Suit Number: CA/L/805/2012
CORAM
UZO I. NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
TIJJANI ABUBAKAR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
IAMILU YAMMAMA TUKUR, JUSTICE COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION
APPELLANTS
1. MRS OKOTIE ELIZABETH
2. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
APPEAL, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State delivered by Hon. Justice E.A. Adebayo on the 15th December, 2011. The 2nd Respondent in this appeal laid a complaint to the Appellant bordering on fraud against the 1st Respondent. Based on the said complaint, the Appellant invited the 1st Respondent and detained her. The 1st Respondent being dissatisfied with her detention filed at the court below on the 17th February, 2010 an application for the enforcement of her Fundamental Rights against the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent seeking declarative and injunctive reliefs. Responding to the Application, the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent filed their respective counter affidavit and written addresses. The lower court after perusing all the processes filed before it and listening to counsel of all the parties, held that the detention of the 1st Respondent by the Appellant was not unconstitutional thereby dismissing the 1st Respondent declarative and injunctive orders against the Appellant. However, the Court granted the 1st Respondent damages in the sum of N200,000.00 against the Appellant for the breach of her right to dignity. Being dissatisfied with the (said judgment) and award of damages, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on the 8th day of March, 2012 containing two grounds of appeal.
HELD
Appeal allowed
ISSUES
Whether or not the lower court was right to have ordered the Appellant to pay the Respondent the sum of N200, 000.00 to the 1st Respondent as damages for breach of her right to dignity when the same lower court found that the detention of the 1st Respondent by the Appellant was not unconstitutional
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION – DUTIES/POWERS OF THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION
“Economic and Financial Crime Commission is a statutory body created under the Laws of Nigeria. Its duties include the investigation and prosecution of a class of criminal offences. The law empowers the Appellant to investigate a complaint and if possible prosecute. See Fawehinmi vs. Inspector General of Police (2002) 7 NWLR Pt. 767 pg. 606.” – Per NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA
BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT – WHETHER A BREACH OF RIGHT ARISES WHERE A DUTY OF CARE IS OWED
“From the foregoing, the Learned Trial Judge held that the operatives of the EFCC had done nothing wrong in the act of carrying out their investigative duties. Having held so, the trial error could not have reached a conclusion that the Appellant had a duty of care towards the 1st Respondent. The trial Judge had found no action that was blame worthy in the course of the investigations.
The 1st Respondent was held in custody for only 3 days. She was also detained with fellow women in the facilities the EFCC had. A breach can only arise if there is a duty of care owed.” – Per NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA
RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF HUMAN PERSON – WHETHER A PERSON BEING KEPT IN A DEGRADING DETENTION FACILITY WILL AMOUNT TO A BREACH OF THE PERSON’S RIGHT
“I agree that no person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The 1st Respondent deposed in her affidavit paragraph 25:
“That while I was in the custody of the 1st Respondent I and other cellmates were all put into one room, with the toilet and bathroom open that there was no privacy at all You can be eating and your room mate will be passing excrement by your side.”
This is what she met in detention. Facilities might be bad or inhuman but it is not a wrong directed at the 1st Respondent personally. This is what the organization had. Like the Appellant re-iterated, it is not a luxurious apartment like somebody’s home.” – Per NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA
BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – WHETHER A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED FOR FAILING TO MEET BAIL CONDITIONS CAN CLAIM BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
“I had earlier in this judgment held affirming the holding of the trial court that, the 1st Respondent was not held in custody without jurisdiction. She was held in lawful custody whilst investigation was going on. Also she was granted administrative bail and was only released when she could fulfill the bail terms.
It is true that the EFCC operatives do not have unbridled powers to deprive citizens of their liberty while the case against them is being investigated. See Johnson vs. Lufadeju (2002) 8 NWLR Pt. 768 pg. 205.
In this case, the 1st Respondent was granted bail. She stayed in custody until she fulfilled the bail terms. It cannot therefore be said that the Appellant detained the 1st Respondent unduly.
Having said this, it would be out of place for the trial Judge to hold that the 1st Respondent’s right to the dignity was breached.” – Per NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA
BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – WHETHER DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED WHERE THE RIGHTS OF A PERSON WAS NOT BREACHED
“The 1st Respondent’s rights were not breached and as such the award of N 200, 000.00 doesn’t flow naturally from the views expressed by the court in the award of damages. The trial Judge held that the 1st Respondent had not been wrongfully deprived of her liberty. If there is no breach they can be no damages. The trial Judge was therefore wrong to have awarded the N200,000.00.” – Per NDUKWE-ANYANWU, JCA
CASES CITED
NONE
STATUTES REFERRED TO
1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)
