CORAM
PARTIES
HERITAGE BANK PLC
1. S & S WIRELESS LIMITED2. MRS. TOPE OLUSOLA 3.MR. SEINDE OLUSOLA 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE5. ASST. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ZONE II6. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The appeal is from the judgment of the High Court of Lagos State (the Court below) whereby it awarded the sum of N275 Million in favour of the 1st – 3rd respondents against the appellant and the 4th – 5th respondents jointly and severally for breach of the 1st – 3rd respondents fundamental rights to personal liberty. Sketchily stated, the case of the 1st – 3rd respondents as applicants at the Court below was that the 1st – 3rd respondents contracted a finance agreement with the appellant for an overdraft facility of N150 million to finance the purchase of sim-packs and recharge cards for resale and distribution. The 1st – 3rd respondents noticed over-charges and arbitrary increase in interest rates on the loan which their consultants examined and discovered to be N47, 121,083.60k. The 1st 3rd respondents tried amicable resolution of the issue with the appellant. The bid to settle the dispute in peace failed. The 1st – 3rd respondents sued the appellant at the High Court of Lagos State over the dispute. In the meantime, the appellant petitioned the 4th and 5th respondents and later the 6th respondent over the dispute alleging criminality. The 2nd – 3rd respondents were arrested by the 4th – 6th respondents to answer the allegation. The 2nd respondent was detained for 29 days in the course of which the 2nd 3rd respondents were forced to sign undertaking to pay the debt. Their property and assets were also confiscated. It led to the collapse of the business of the 1st respondent. The Court below accepted the one-sided affidavit evidence of the 1st – 3rd respondents and found upon the uncontroverted and uncontradicted affidavit evidence that the arrest and detention of the 2nd – 3rd respondents was instigated by the appellant who acted in collaboration with the 4th – 5th respondents; upon which the Court below awarded N272 Million in favour of the 1st – 3rd respondents against the appellant and the 4th – 5th respondents jointly and severally for breach of their fundamental right to personal liberty. The appellant as the 1st respondent at the Court below was not satisfied with the judgement and filed a notice of appeal with six (6) grounds of appeal. The original notice of appeal was with the leave of the Court amended and subsequently further amended with the leave of the Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed.
ISSUES
None
RATIONES DECIDENDI
INCOMPETENT APPLICATION – APPROPRIATE ORDER TO BE MADE ON INCOMPETENT APPLICATIONS
“When an application is held to be incompetent the consequential order is to strike out the application. The ruling of the Federal High Court (Molokwu, J.) did not therefore put an end or finality to the litigation in that case as the application was not determined on the merit. See the illuminating judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sifax (Nig.) Limited And Ors. V. Migfo Nigeria Limited And Anor. (2018) 9 NWLR (PT. 1623) 138 AT 182 183 per the lead judgment prepared by Augie, J.S.C., thus
‘… a suit that is struck out has not been disposed of permanently …’
See also Owoh & Ors V. Asuk & Ors (2008) 16 NWLR (PT. 1112) 113 at 129-130, paras. H-B wherein this Court per Mohammed, JSC (as he then was) observed as follows-
‘Striking out of the plaintiffs/appellants’ action does not finally determine the respective rights of the parties in the dispute placed before the trial Court for determination. In this situation, where the claims or rights of the parties have not been examined or looked into by the trial Court and appropriate findings made thereon resulting in a determination, these claims or right effectively remain pending and can be reviewed by any of the parties in any other Court of concurrent jurisdiction or even the same Court that handed down the striking out order.. In other words, where a suit is struck out, the plaintiff has another opportunity to commence action after curing the deficiency, which resulted in the striking out of the suit – Alor v. Ngene (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1062) 163 at 179 SC.’”
FINDINGS OF COURT – CONSEQUENCES OF UNCHALLENGED FINDINGS OF COURT
“The findings grounding the liability of the appellant were not challenged in any of the grounds of appeal in the further amended notice of appeal and/or any issue for determination in the appeal. The said findings/holding subsists and are on that basis conclusive and binding on the appellant. See Okotie-Eboh V. Manager (2004) 11 12 S.C. 174 at 193 per the lead judgment prepared by Edozie, J.S.C., (as he then was, now of blessed memory) thus –
‘It is trite law that a finding against which there is no appeal remains binding and conclusive: see Alakija v. Abdulai (1998) 5 S.C. 1; (1998) 6 NWLR (Pt. 552) 1 at p.24, Odiase v. Agho (1972) 3 S.C. (Reprint) 69; (1972) All NLR (Pt. 1) 170; Foreign Finance v. L.S.D.P.C. (1991) 1 NSCC 520, P.N. Udoh Trading CD. Ltd. v. Abere (2001) 5 S.C. (Pt. II) 64; (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt.723) 114 al 146, Yesufu v. Kupper International (1996) 5 NWLR (Pt.446) 17, Nwabueze v. Okoye (1988) 10-11 S.C. 77; (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 91) 664.’”
INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT – CONSEQUENCES OF PROOF OF INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
“It is trite that once an infringement of fundamental right is proved or established the award of compensation in form of monetary damages, whether claimed or not, follows as surely as sunrise in the Tropics (permit the expression).”
ENFORCEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS – WHETHER AN AWARD OF DAMAGES IS APPLICABLE IN AN ACTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
“There is nothing like categorisation and particularisation of damages in an action for the enforcement of fundamental rights Vide Jim-Jaja V. C.O.P. Rivers State (2013) 6 NWLR (PT.1350) 225 at 254 per the lead judgment prepared by Muntaka-Coomassie, J.S.C., thus –
‘The appellant’s claim is in connection with the breach of his fundamental rights to his liberty by the respondents. The onus is on him to show that he was unlawfully arrested and detained i.e. that his fundamental right has been violated. If this is proved, by virtue of the provisions of Section 35(6) of the 1999 Constitution Federal Republic of Nigeria, the complainant is entitled to compensation and apology, where no specific amount is claimed. Where a specific amount is claimed, it is for the Court to consider the claim and in its opinion, the amount that would be justified to compensate the victim of the breach.’
In this respect, the common law principles on the award of damages do not apply to matter brought under the enforcement of the Fundamental Human Rights procedure as submitted by the learned counsel to the 3rd respondent. The procedure for the enforcement of the Fundamental Human Right was specifically promulgated to protect the Nigerians’ fundamental rights from abuse and violation by authorities and persons. When a breach of the right is proved, the victim is entitled to compensation even if no specific amount is claimed. See also the judgment prepared by M.D. Muhammad J.S.C., in page 256 thereof thus –
‘Appellant’s unlawful detention by the respondents constitutes a breach of his right to personal liberty as guaranteed under Section 35 (1) of the Constitution. The same Constitution has provided under Section 35 (6) thus:-
“35 (6): Any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate authority or person.” (Italics supplied for emphasis).’”
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – WHETHER AN APPLICANT NEEDS TO SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR COMPENSATION WHERE HE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE WAS UNLAWFULLY DETAINED
“From the foregoing, the appellant does not have to ask for compensation once he has established the fact of his being unlawfully detained, a fact which the Court below itself held he has. The compensation is automatic by the operation of the law.”
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ACTION – WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ACTION CAN BE MAINTAINED BY AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON
“The 1st respondent is an artificial person and would not be entitled to damages, as it does not have fundamental rights to vindicate and be compensated in damages therefor. The said award which included the 1st respondent was, therefore, based on erroneous principle of law as fundamental rights action cannot be maintained by an artificial person in respect of violation of the right to personal liberty vide First Bank Plc V. A.-G., Federation (2018) 7 NWLR (PT. 1617) 121.”
AWARD OF DAMAGES – WHETHER DAMAGES CAB BE AWARDED JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY AGAINST DEFENDANTS
“The point has to be made that when damages are awarded jointly and severally against defendants, it implies that any of the defendants or judgment debtors or all of them could be proceeded against by the judgment creditor for the fruits of the judgment, therefore the appellant could not have been right to maintain that the award was bad because it amounted to lumping the appellant and the 4th 5th respondents together.”
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Not Available|