MR. CHARLES OKECHUKWU v ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION

CORAM

PARTIES

1. MR. CHARLES OKECHUKWU

2. HARLIES CHUKS INTERNATIONAL LTD

APPELLANTS

1. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CRIMES COMMISSION (EFCC)

2. PENNY SUN

3. GUANGZHOU PENNY (CHAODI) SHOES CO. LTD.

RESPONDENTS

AREA(S) OF LAW

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The 2nd Appellant and 2nd and 3rd Respondents were involved in the business of importation of shoes. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents were responsible for shipping the shoes from the Peoples’ Republic of China to the 2nd Appellant. In 2006, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents shipped some containers of shoes to Cotonou port which were seized and auctioned by the Customs Authority in Cotonou because the Bill of Laden to the goods was not released by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents. Thereafter the 2nd and 3rd Respondents engaged the services of the 1st Respondents to collect the sum of US$162, 000.00 being the cost of the imported shoes from the Appellant. The 1st Appellant averred that he was arrested on three occasions by the 1st Respondent and was made to undertake to repay the alleged sum, of which he paid a total sum of S5,000 to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents through the 1st Respondent. The Appellants applied for the enforcement of their fundamental rights at the Federal High Court. The trial court adjourned the application for ruling to the 10th of December 2009 after hearing the arguments of all parties. Thereafter, the Appellant’s counsel informed the court of the provisions of Order xv Rule 3 as well as Order V Rules 1 and 9 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 which came into effect on the 1st of December 2009 as it affected the Applicant’s case. The trial court in its ruling found merit in the argument of the Appellant but proceeded to strike out the application on grounds that the Appellants failed to comply with the provisions of Order 2 Rule 1 (4) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979. The Appellant being dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court has appealed to this court.

HELD

Appeal Allowed

ISSUES

Whether the Appellants’ application for enforcement of their Fundamental Rights is deemed to be determined under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 and whether an alleged non compliance with Order 2 Rule 1 (4) of the Fundamental Rights(Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 1979 ought to defeat the Appellant’s application?

RATIONES DECIDENDI

RIGHTS AND CAUSES OF ACTION –LAW GUIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS AND CAUSES OF ACTION

“The law guiding procedure for the determination of rights and causes of action is the current law and rules of procedure. They operate and are construed retrospectively”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – RULE GOVERNING INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

“The general rule governing interpretation of statutes is that where the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Court should give the words their literal meaning: Egbe v Alhaji & Ors (1990) 1 NWLR (Pt 128) 546”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS – WHETHER A PARTY CAN EXPAND THE FRONTIERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BEYOND THE EXPECTATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

“A party cannot by operation of his own whims and caprices expand the frontiers
of constitutional rights beyond the anticipation of the constitution as no person can read into the constitution what is not there”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION – CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE A PARTY WOULD HAVE TO COMMENCE TWO DIFFERENT ACTIONS

“Where a set of facts disclose multiple causes of action including a contravention of a fundamental right, the aggrieved party would have to commence two different actions; one by writ of summons and the other by motion ex parte under the (Enforcement Procedure) Rules- Sokoto LG v Amale (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt 714) 224 @240-241G-A”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

SERVICE OF ORIGINATING APPLICATION – PROPER PARTY TO EFFECT SERVICE OF ORIGINATING APPLICATION

“By Order V Rule 1 of the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, service of the originating application or Order of Court shall be done by the Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff, Bailiff or other officer of the Court”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES – WHEN CAN THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS (ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE) RULES BE INVOKED

“Where a breach of the provisions of Chapter IV of the Constitution is the principal claim, the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules can be invoked even though other claims are made; and that a party can therefore seek ancillary reliefs (including monetary claims) in an action for enforcement of fundamental rights once the party can show that the main claim is the enforcement of rights guaranteed under Chapter IV of the Constitution and that the ancillary reliefs are connected with the principal claim”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS -WHETHER AN ARTIFICIAL PERSON CAN FILE AN ACTION FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

“An artificial person such as the 2nd Appellant can file an action for the enforcement of its Fundamental rights since companies/artificial persons can only act through human beings”. PER C. E. IYIZOBA, JCA

Legalpedia Citation: (2014) Legalpedia (CA) 13316

In the Court of Appeal

Fri Dec 5, 2014

Suit Number: CA/L/465/2010