Legalpedia Citation: (2015) Legalpedia (CA) 41331
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT KADUNA
Tue Jan 27, 2015
Suit Number: CA/AK/179/13
CORAM
BAIRAMIAN CHIEF JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
MR. MATTHIAS NNORUGAMRS. THERESA NNORUGAMR. MIKE AKPELEMR. HYACINTH MICHAEL
DR. AKINBOWALE R. ENIOWOMR. OMONIYI (AREA COMMAND OFFICE, AKURE)CORP OLANIPEKUN EHINMODEDAMILOLA OLADUNMOYEAREA COMMANDER, AKURECOMMISSSIONER OF POLICE ONDO STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellant brought an action against the Respondent at the Federal High Court, Akure, praying the court for some reliefs amongst which is a declaration that the threat of arrest, subsequent arrest and detention of the applicants by the 2nd Respondent is unlawful, and constitutes a breach of the Fundamental Rights of the Applicants. The case between the parties was that the Appellants who traded under the name and style of Akure Team Quarry entered into an agreement with the 1st Respondent for the blasting, evacuation and management of rock. The 1st Respondent thereupon transferred the sum of N5.5 million to the Appellants who used their Certificate of Occupancy as collateral. The Appellants who began the work encountered some problems and wrote a letter to the 1st Respondent asking for a variation of the contract. The 1st Respondent refused the request for a variation of the contract and asked for a refund of the N5.5 million he had paid to the Appellants. The Respondents were given the sum of N2.4 million as part of the money had been used at the commencement of the work. Upon a report made by the 1st Respondent to the police, the Appellants were detained unlawfully after which they made a statement to the police. The police subsequently forced the 2nd Appellant to withdraw the sum of N970, 000 from her account which the police then gave to the 1st Respondent hence this action commenced by the Appellants at the trial court. At the end of the trial, the Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondents. Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial Court, the Appellant has appealed to this Court.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether or not from the available evidence before the trial Judge and his findings in his Judgment, the trial Judge was right in dismissing the claims of the Appellants for the violation of their fundamental rights and award of damages to them for the violation (Ground One). Whether or not the trial Judge was right in refusing to evaluate material evidence canvassed on the reliefs, b, c, d and e in the Appellants’ application and make pronouncement on same, the Appellants having canvassed same vehemently before the Court (Grounds Two, Three and Four).
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ARREST -AN ARREST CANNOT CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS WHERE SAME IS DONE IN THE LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE DUTY OF THE POLICE
“An arrest properly made cannot constitute a breach of fundamental rights. A citizen who is arrested by the police in the legitimate exercise of their duty and on grounds of reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence cannot sue the police in Court for breach of his fundamental rights. See Okano v. C.O.P. & Anor (2001) 7 CHR 407”.
VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT – CONSEQUENCES OF A VIOLATION OF A CITIZEN’S GUARANTEED FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
“Any violation of a citizen’s guaranteed fundamental right however short a period must attract penalty under the law. See Alaboh v. Boyes (1984) 5 NCLR 830 and Jimoh v. A-G, Fed. (1998) 7 HRLR A 513.”
UNLAWFUL ARREST AND DETENTION – WHETHER A SUBSEQUENT ARRAIGNMENT OF A PERSON UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED WILL CURE THE ILLEGALITY?
“Where the arrest and detention of a person are unlawful and unconstitutional any subsequent arraignment of that person before a Court of law cannot and would not cure the illegality or unconstitutionality. See Abiola v. Abacha (1998) 7 HRLRA 458”.
BURDEN OF PROVING THE LEGALITY OF ARREST AND DETENTION – THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE LEGALITY OF ARREST AND DETENTION IS ON THE ARRESTING AUTHORITY
“The burden of proving the legality or constitutionality of the arrest and or detention of a person is on the arresting authority”.
POWER OF THE POLICE TO DETAIN A PERSON FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION – THE POLICE HAVE NO POWER TO DETAIN A PERSON FOR BREACH OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION
“The police have no power to detain a person for breach of contractual obligations. Any such detention is a violation of the person’s right to freedom of movement. See McLaren v. Jennings (2003) FWLR (Pt. 154) 528”:.
ARREST OR DETENTION – WHETHER A COURT CAN MAKE AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION AGAINST ANY FURTHER ARREST OR DETENTION
“A Court as a rule must limit itself to the circumstances of a particular case or cases placed before it. Therefore a Court cannot be moved to make a blanket order of injunction against any further arrest or detention. If the Applicant is again wrongfully arrested and detained in future, the doors of the Court are always open and justice will be dispensed without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. See Jimoh v. A-G, Fed. ( 1998) 1 HRLA 513.”
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999|