CORAM
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
IBRAHIM MOHAMMED MUSA SAULAWA
CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL CHUKWUMA-ENEH, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
1. HI-QUALITY BAKERY LIMITED2. ALHAJI MAMZA UMARU
1. MISS THERESA LONGE2. KINGSLEY UDOH(IPO STATE HOUSING POLICE STATION, CALABAR)3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CROSS RIVER STATE
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Calabar Division in Suit No. FHC/CA/M84/2014, delivered on the 11th day of May, 2015. The facts of this case are that the 1st Respondent was an employee of the 1st Appellant. She was employed by the 1st Appellant on 1st January, 2014 as a Sales Personnel. Some months into that job, the 1st Respondent was arrested by the police at the instigation of the officials of the 1st Appellant. Aggrieved by the action of the 1st Appellant, the 1st Respondent applied to the Court below for the enforcement of her fundamental rights. The parties joined issues on this application. The Court below then heard the application of the Applicant now 1st Respondent in this appeal and found for her in its judgment. Aggrieved by that decision, the Appellants filed their Appeal. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents in this appeal also filed a cross-appeal.
HELD
Appeal Allowed, Cross-Appeal Struck Out.
ISSUES
Whether the Federal High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the 1st Respondents case at the Court below? Whether the Appellants who merely lodged a complaint of stealing to the Police can jointly be held liable for infringing the fundamental right of the 1st Respondent? Whether in the circumstances, the trial Court was right in law when it made findings which were not borne out of evidence of parties thereby failing to evaluate evidence of parties properly and same occasioned a miscarriage of justice?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
CROSS-APPEAL – NATURE AND THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CROSS-APPEAL
“For our guide it is necessary to underscore here the nature and the principles governing cross-appeal. In an appeal, the Respondent has the goal of defending the appeal but where he is not satisfied with a finding of the trial Court that he considers fundamental to the case, or where he seeks a reversal of a finding he can only seek redress in the Appeal Court by filing and arguing a cross-appeal. The filing of a cross-appeal does not relieve the Respondent of the task of defending the judgment on appeal, on all other findings therein that he is satisfied with. A cross-appeal can only be filed by a Respondent seeking to correct errors in the judgment or to set aside a finding which is crucial and fundamental to the case. See Ajayi Vs. Military Administrator Ondo State (1997) 5 NWLR (Pt. 507) P. 231; Eliochin (Nig.) Ltd. Vs. Mbadiwe (1986) 1 NWLR (PT. 14) P. 47. See the cases of NNPC Vs. Clifco (Nig.) Ltd. (2011) 10 NWLR (PT. 1255) 209; and Lafia Local Govt. Vs. The Executive Gov. Nassarawa State & Ors. (2012) 17 NWLR (PT. 1328) 94″.
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – RATIONALE FOR RAISING THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION AT THE APPELLATE COURT FOR THE FIRST TIME
“To start with it is well settled that jurisdiction is very fundamental in every case to be heard by the Court. Due to its importance an issue of jurisdiction can be raised even at the appellate Court for the first time. You can see the cases of Elabanjo & Anor. Vs. Dawodu (2006) 15 NWLR (PT. 1001) 76; A. G. Kwara State & Anor. Vs. Adeyemo & Ors. (2016) LPELR 41147 (SC); Otukpo Vs. John (2000) 8 NWLR (PT. 669) 507; and Nsirim Vs. Amadi (2016) LPELR-26053 (SC)”.
ISSUE OF JURISDICTION – DUTY OF COURT WHEN AN ISSUE OF JURISDICTION IS I RAISED
“In every proceeding where jurisdiction is raised, it is a prime duty for the Court to beam its searchlight on it to have that issue resolved with dispatch”.
ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS – COURTS WITH JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN ACTION ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
“The jurisdiction of Courts to entertain the application for fundamental right is as specified in Section 46 of the 1999 Constitution and Order 2 Rule 1 of the Fundamental rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. Section 46(1), (2) of the Constitution provides:
46.- (1) Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply on a High court for redress.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a High Court shall have original jurisdiction to her and determine any application made to it in pursuance of the provisions of this section and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement within that State of any right to which the person who makes the application may be entitled under this Chapter.
Order 1 Rule 2 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 specifically included Federal High Court in the definition of the Court to hear the application.
Over the years, the Supreme Court in a plethora of authorities has settled the issue of jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as dispensed by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Two of such decisions have been called in by the parties in this case. The Appellants are in the main relying on the decision in the case of Adetona & Ors. Vs. Igele General Enterprises Ltd. (2011) (supra) decided on Friday, 14th day of January, 2011. The dictum relied upon by the Appellant is as per I. T. Muhammad, JSC. His Lordship said:
Although, unlike the 1979 Constitution, Section 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution does not define High Court, there is no doubt that the term carries the same meaning as given by Section 277(1) of the 1979 Constitution to mean Federal High Court or the High Court of a State. Therefore, where a persons fundamental right is breached, being breached, or about to be breached, the person may apply under Section 46(1) to the Judicial Division of the Federal High Court in the State or the High Court of the State or that of the Federal Capital Territory in which the breach occurred or is occurring, or about to occur. This is irrespective of whether the right involved comes within the legislative competence of the Federation or the State of the Federal Capital Territory. However, it should be noted that the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Federal High Court is whether the Fundamental Rights threatened, or breached falls within the enumerated matters on which the Court has jurisdiction. Thus, fundamental rights arising from matters outside its jurisdiction cannot be enforced by the Federal High Court. (Underlining mine).
The learned counsel for the 1st Respondent relied on the case of Benson Agbule Vs. Warri Refinery And Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (2013) 6 NWLR (PT. 1350) 318 per Ogunbiyi, JSC. His Lordship held:
On a gruesome and careful determination of the case of NEPA Vs. Edegbero.. per Ogundare, JSC, while interpreting the constitutional enactment as provided in paragraph (q), (r) and (s) of Section 230 (1), held the following pronouncement of pages 80-81 of the report and said; from what I have said earlier in this judgment, the aim of paragraphs (q), (r) and (s) of Sub-section 230 was to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court in matters in the Federal Government or any of its Agencies was a party. A State High Court would no longer have jurisdiction in such matters notwithstanding the nature of the claim in the action.”
From these decisions, it is settled beyond controversy that both the Federal High Court and the State High Court have concurrent jurisdiction in actions for the enforcement of the fundamental rights but their divergence from the authority of Adetona Vs. Igele General Ent. Ltd. is in respect of the subject matter of the right breached. If the right breached is within the context of the enumerated matters in which the Federal High Court has jurisdiction, then the Federal High Court can entertain the matter. The authority of Adetona Vs. Igele General Ent. Ltd. (supra) binds this Court and this Court had relied upon it in Osunde Vs. Baba (2015) ALL FWLR (PT. 781) 1482 cited by the learned counsel for the Appellants”.
POLICE – ROLE OF THE POLICE UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE POLICE ACT
“The role of the Police is under Section 4 of the Police Act. The law specifies that:
The police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under the authority of this or any other act”.
DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS – PURPORT OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS
“By the operation of the doctrine of stare decisis, no one can go any inch outside what the Supreme Court has decided “.
CASES CITED
Not Available
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).|Fundamental rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009|Police Act|