CORAM
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
MUHAMMAD S. MUNTAKA-COOMASSIE (Lead Judgment), JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
ALFRED EYEWUMI AWALA JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
PARTIES
1. FORT ROYAL HOMES LIMTTED2. MR OTUNBA COLLINS ADEWUNMI
1. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION2. SUNTRUST SAVINGS AND LOANS LIMITED
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This appeal has arisen from the ruling of Honourable Justice Garba Salisu of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Holden at Abuja. The Appellants/Applicants at the lower Court filed a motion dated and filed on the 19th of September 2012. In support of the motion, is an affidavit and a written address in compliance with the provisions of the Fundamental Human Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules of 2009. The 1st Respondent in reaction to the motion filed a counter affidavit on the 28th of September, 2012. The 2nd Respondent also filed an affidavit on the 17th of November, 2012. In response to issues raised, the Appellants/Applicants filed a further and better affidavit and reply on points of law. The application was heard and dismissed by the trial Court. Dissatisfied, the Appellants filed a notice of appeal.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed.
ISSUES
Whether it was proved at the trial court that the appellants’ fundamental right to personal liberty was breached?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
OBJECTION TO AN APPEAL – DUTY OF PARTY WHO INTENDS TO OBJECT TO AN APPEAL
“By the rules of this Court a respondent who wishes to object to the appeal is expected to file a preliminary objection. Now, the proper thing for both counsels to the 1st and 2nd respondents to have done is to have filed a preliminary objection. This, they have not done. Rather what they have done was to mention in their respective briefs of arguments their objection that the issues raised by the appellant have not been properly raised as they do not flow from the grounds of appeal. Order 10 Rule 1 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2016 provides:
“A respondent intending to rely upon a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal, shall give the appellant three clear days’ notice thereof before the hearing, setting out the grounds of objection, and shall file such notice together with twenty copies thereof with the registry within the same time.”
From the above, the respondents are not in compliance with the Rules. Non-compliance with the Rules renders the objection incompetent and it is struck out. By virtue of the cases of Ogunbiyi V. Ishola (1996) 6 NWLR (PT.4520) 12 and Akpan V. Bob (2010) 17 NWLR (PT.1223) at 476, it was held in both cases that the appellate Court has the power to condense or reframe issues for determination whenever it deems it apt”
HUMAN RIGHTS – WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS?
“Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. And when they are protected as legal rights they then become known as fundamental human rights which are protected by the grundnorm of the society i.e. the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE – GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
“I must point out here that the evaluation of relevant and material evidence before the Court and the ascription of probative value to such evidence are the primary functions of the trial Court, which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses while they testified. Where the trial Court unquestionably evaluates the evidence and justifiably appraises the facts, it is not the business of the appellate Court to substitute its own views for the views of the trial Court.- Fagbenro V. Arobadi (2006) 7 NWLR (PT. 978) 174 SC. In the evaluation of evidence, the trial Courts are guided by the following principles, namely: (a) whether the evidence is admissible; (b) whether the evidence is relevant; (c) whether the evidence is credible; (d) whether the evidence is conclusive; and (e) whether the evidence is more probable than that given by the other party. – Mogagi V. Odofin (1978) 4 SC 91 and Akad Industries Ltd v. Olubode (2004) 4 NWLR (PT.862) JCA.”
RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY – CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY
“Every person is protected from arbitrary arrest and no man shall be arrested except for reasonable cause allowed or permitted by law. A man should enjoy liberty and freedom without unpermitted interference or inhibition. Fundamental Human Rights are fundamental because they are guaranteed by the Constitution. See Uzoukwu Vs Ezeonu II (1991) 6 NWLR (Part 200) 708 and Enaboro Vs Abacha (1998) 1 NWLR 424.”
RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY – CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN ONE’S PERSONAL LIBERTY MAY BE IMPAIRED
“The law is settled that where a person is suspected of having committed an offence, his liberty may be impaired temporarily. Section 35(1) (c) of 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended) is to the effect that the person can be lawfully arrested or detained for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so.”
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION – STATUTORY POWERS OF THE ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION TO CARRY OUT ARREST
“The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and its officials are statutorily empowered to arrest anybody upon reasonable suspicion of having committed any financial crime as prescribed in Section 7 of the EFCC Act, 2004. See Chairman EFCC Vs Little Child (2016) 3 NWLR (Part 1498) 72 at 78. Section 7(1) (a) of the EFCC Act provides:
1) The commission has power to-
a) Cause investigations to be conducted as to whether any person, corporate body or organization has committed any offence under this Act or other law relating to economic and financial crimes.”
FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS – PROPER APPROACH TO A CLAIM FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
“The Supreme Court in Amale Vs Sokoto Govt. (2012)11 SCNJ 181 at 183 held that the correct approach in a claim for enforcement of fundamental rights is to examine the reliefs sought, the grounds for such reliefs and the facts relied upon whether a breach of fundamental rights was disclosed.”
BAIL – WHO CAN BE GRANTED BAIL?
“Thus on the settled position of our law, it is only a person who is detained that is granted bail. See Duruaku Vs Nwoke (2015) 15 NWLR (Part 1483) 417 at 425.”
RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY – WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY IS ABSOLUTE
“It is necessary to state that a citizen’s freedom or liberty is not absolute. See Hassan Vs EFCC (2014) 1 NWLR (PART 1389) 607.”
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS – LEVEL OF CARE EXPECTED OF COUNSEL HANDLING CASES INVOLVING ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
“A higher level of care is expected of counsel when handling cases especially sensitive cases such as these which involve the enforcement of fundamental human rights.”
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS – GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN AN APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
“Moreover, Order II Rules 3 and 4 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, provides that applications must set out detailed description of the applicant, reliefs sought and the grounds upon which the reliefs are sought by an affidavit made by the applicant or by a person who has knowledge of the facts or by one who has been informed by the applicant stating that the applicant cannot depose to the affidavit. This simply means that where for any reason the applicant is unable to depose to an affidavit, someone else can depose on his/her behalf. The deponent must identify himself by attaching his passport as required by the rules.”
AFFIDAVIT – CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVIT MAY BE PERMISSIBLE IN COURT
“According to the provisions of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, the Court may permit an affidavit to be used, notwithstanding it is defective in form, if the Court is satisfied that it has been sworn to before a person duly authorized. See Osasuyi Vs Mudashiru (2015) 4 NWLR (PART 1449) 201 at 204 and Maduka Vs Ubah (2015) 11 NWLR (PART 1470) 201. Order 1 Rule 1 of the FCT High Court Civil Procedure Rules provides:
“Where in commencing proceedings, or at any stage in the course of proceedings, there appears a failure to comply with the provisions of these Rules, in respect of time, place, manner, form or content or others, the failure may be treated as an irregularity, which shall not nullify the respective proceedings, document, judgment or order.””
INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS – NATURE OF THE QUESTION OF INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS
“The question of infringement of fundamental rights is largely a question of facts and does not so much depend on the dexterous submission of counsel on the law. So it is the facts as disclosed by the affidavit evidence that is usually examined, analyzed and evaluated to see if the fundamental rights have been breached as claimed. See Okafor Vs Lagos State Govt. (2017) 4 NWLR (Part 1556) 404 at 413.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Act, 2004
Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT